I don't think there is a result, yet. Legal processes take time.

You can always get US dollars. The question I have is whether one can get a BTC refund. What HashFast said on this site may not be in the sales agreement. If the sales agreement does not "guarantee you will not lose you BTC" or that refunds will be in BTC (both claims made by HashFast on this site), then there may not be a case. I have no idea what the law would say in the case. The sales agreement would normally be the only agreement, but we know other claims were made.

It would be interesting to see how the other cases go. If somebody wins, then it would make it easier to demand BTC.

Noting rypedx is taking legal action... wonder what the terms were?

Perhaps wait for a result?

I don't really agree with those statements. I don't mean any disrespect to you or itod, but waldohoover is stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't know the man personally, but reading this thread and knowing what HF did, I cannot see where he did anything wrong.  He offered to collect funds from a group of people, buy a miner, and operate the miner.  He did that, or tried.  HF failed to deliver.

He cannot do anything to motivate HF and cannot be held responsible for non-delivery.  He tried to get a BTC refund as HF promised, but they lied to everyone.  And as HF did promise to return BTC (even guaranteeing people will not lose their BTC!), there were likely folks who joined the group buy thinking it was a relatively safe bet.  Everything that went wrong here, IMO, is entirely the fault of HashFast.  They lied about returning BTC and then they presented Waldo with an absolutely insane set of conditions for accepting the USD refund.  HF is the one who screwed everyone.

It was said before, but if HF had delivered, nobody would be upset.  They didn't.  Blame them.

There is one other option that Waldo might have, if he's indeed in California.  He could sue HF himself in small claims court.  He could sue for up to $10K if he did not represent himself as a business to HF.  He could file a case for the first miner and, being successful, sue for the next.  He has reasonable grounds for doing that, since they only offered a refund with the condition that he cannot further sue them, etc -- it was an insane set of limitations to which nobody should be required to agree.  Their failure to communicate with him would naturally lead him to court.  So, he could sue over the first miner, showing all documentation where they offered a full refund in BTC, etc. and showing the present value of BTC.  He cannot ask for more than $10K in small claims, but perhaps he could start with just one that is well below $10K.

Now, once the court agrees that the BTC should be refunded, HF might feel more compelled to refund the rest in BTC without further litigation.  After all, the small claim lawsuit would set a precedent to which waldohoover could subsequently refer.

They might continue to be contrary, but he could then just file another for the next piece of hardware they failed to deliver, and so on.

The other option is to try to negotiate with HF to ship out a new miner that would meet the comparable hashing power as what would have been delivered by 12/31.  They do have hardware.  They could ship it.  That would likely be best for all.

If I read that right, the lawyer can keep coming back for more deposits without limit. I'm not sure this is a good idea. Contingency isn't this.

On the plus side, it looks like the lawyers is taking only 40% above the initial USD payment. That's interesting.

Still question the deposit requests.

He never said that was his management fee. You haven't paid that, yet. That's coming out of your earnings or settlement.

He did charge more than he paid for the miners. So he profited. He explained what that profit was used for, though he had no requirement to explain.

Remember, he offered to do a group buy at a set price. You knew at the time there was a little profit. Then, it was very little profit, as bitcoin was worth way less then. Regardless, you agreed on the price.

I don't see where he has misled anyone. You're only angry because you have no miner. Blame HashFast.

itod,

This is a group buy, not a sale by waldohoover. I think this is where you're making a mistake. He offered to pool funds from folks and buy a miner. Yes, he did take in more per miner than the actual cost, but he's also doing all of the work to purchase, install, and operate. I think that's irrelevant, anyway. There was a price and you accepted it.

The only issue is who is responsible. He stated from the outset that he is not responsible for nondelivery. I think his only responsibility is in trying to get a refund, which he is actively doing. You can't fault him there, either.

The problem is that HashFast failed to deliver. To make it worse, they are now trying to get out of paying a full refund in BTC as they promised. Again, not waldohoover's fault.

Chill and let the lawyer do his job. My only curiosity is why the lawyer working on contingency wants an upfront amount, especially such a small amount. If there's truly 400 bitcoins as a part of the suit and he gets 30% (or whatever), that's quite a bit of income for the case.

Wow. The attorney just got the paperwork. Might as well sit back for a long wait.

Wow, I love that note from Hash Fast stating that merely cashing the check means you accept the terms and conditions of their refund.  They're doing their very best to avoid a full BTC refund.

Since it is not a currency, then it can be treated like gold. Hash Fast said that guaranteed your "gold" and said they would return your "gold". In the postings, they made it very clear that you would not be out any BTC if they failed to ship by 12/31/2013.

It does not matter that BTC is legal tender. Hash Fast guaranteed delivery by 12/31 or they would provide a full refund in BTC. They also said they will guarantee your BTC.  I think they made those promises prematurely, but it was those promises that prompted many to take the gamble on their hardware.

The lawyer will not get paid unless he wins. So, I suspect he feels he'll win, otherwise there is no point in taking the case.

Per the posting, "Ray Gallo is ready to take the case on a contingent basis".  So, it should not cost anything upfront.  Not sure what his expects to get, but I would assume it's a fixed percentage.

If a USD refund is sought, I would also suggest that waldo not sign the document HF is trying to force on customers that releases HF of any obligations. I believe there is and should be further dialog on a full BTC refund, given that the founders of the company did make those guarantees.

That said, I can be persuaded either way.  If HF really can deliver more hashing power to make up for lost time, that would be cool.  I have strong doubts now, but I do think the company had good intentions.

I know for sure that I saw a note once where he said he would go ahead and order the miners once a certain percentage of shares are paid.  It might be some of his own money used or it might be that 90% of the shares covered 100% of the actual cost.

However, whether the miner was paid for by him or those who bought shares makes no difference.  Either way, you purchased a share of a miner that was to be delivered at a future date.  He clearly said in the offer that he cannot be responsible for the manufacturer failing to deliver.  You knew there was a risk that they would not deliver.  This happened with BFL and Hash Fast had no products on the market.

What Hash Fast said was that they would refund the money if they failed to deliver.  Right now, they're saying they will only return the USD equivalent of the cost, whereas they apparently said they would return one's BTC.  I posted a link above to one of the founders saying he guaranteed buyers' BTC.  So, Hash Fast lied.  Waldohoover made no false claim, nor did he make any misleading statements.  You would not be complaining if the machine had been delivered on time.  It was not and there's nothing waldohoover can do about it.  If there is any one part of the offer that should stand out in your mind, it's that statement where he said he cannot be responsible for the fact a miner was not delivered.

In any case, it looks like you will at least be able to get a refund for the USD equivalent of what you spent, if the others in the group want to get a refund.  I don't know what the group wants to do, but waldohoover has just a few days to submit a request for a refund.  He might even opt for filing a lawsuit against Hash Fast, since they did apparently guarantee buyers' BTC.  However, this is really up to him (as the recognized purchaser) and, to a lesser extent, those who contributed to the pool.

Anyway, I fully appreciate your frustration.  Not all investments work out the way you plan and you should know that.  There's nothing misleading in what waldohoover offered.  Just sit back and enjoy the ride.  I'd guess everyone would love their BTC back, but Hash Fast likely does not have the funds to return it.  Another option they do have, though, is to provide even more hashing power.  I doubt they'll do that, either.  Likely, they're going to go broke over this fiasco.

I'm struggling with this claim. The thing is, he did not sell the miners. Rather he sold shares of the miners. He also made it clear that he is not responsible of Hash Fast does not deliver.

The important point here is that he was just offering to run the equipment for you and others. It was you who took the risk on Hash Fast delivering.

Your Mac logo example isn't right. Sure, if you have no computer, you can't make logos. However, if you bought a different computer you could make the logos.  With the equipment used for hashing, he is not buying the boxes and leaving you to dry. Rather, he is collecting money from people and using that money to buy the miners. Sometimes, he puts a little of his own money in to buy miners, too, which is why I think he marks them paid.  He indicated somewhere that when he gets to about 90% funded, he buys the miners.

You really shouldn't complain to waldohoover. I'm sure he is as unhappy with Hash Fast as you are. He cannot control what the company does.

malvino,

Considering the news from HashFast of late, it looks like you might just get more angry. It would appear from this page that Simon Barber did say HasFast would refund BTC and that the BTC was guaranteed. There's a more colorful dialog here.

But the letter that went out to all customers requires them to give up all rights if they want a refund and the refund will only be the USD equivalent of what you paid.

Nobody is happy about this situation, but don't take it out on our leader here. He can't control the company, but it does look bad.

Personally, I'd say request a refund and say no to the release. Nothing in the original purchase agreement said customers had to sign the release.  It's better to leave options open.

That said, I'm not sure what folks want. Refund or wait?

I believe everyone understood that waldohoover was purchasing a HashFast miner. Everyone also understood that waldohoover was not the manufacturer. What he echoed in the posting was the manufacturer's claimed shipping date; there should be no misunderstanding on that. If you want to know the time after which the shipment is considered late and subject to a refund, then one had to consult HashFast or just ask waldohoover.  Did you ask about this when you purchased shares?  I'd guess you didn't.  Given what BFL did to so many people, I would think you might want to ask about that.  In any case, the date after which the miner was considered "refundable" was apparently December 31 and that was likely published on HashFast's web site.
[/quote]


I agree it's not a game, but I think you're barking at the wrong person. You should be upset with HastFast, not waldohoover. He clearly stated he cannot be responsible for the failure of the manufacturer to deliver. And, indeed, they did fail to deliver.  So if you put in 10 BTC or so, you lost a lot of potential revenue.  Had you held that 10 BTC, it might be work US$7200K today.  Had HashFast delivered as they advertised, you might have been able to earn 10 BTC (or more) through mining.

The problem is quite simply that HashFast failed to deliver, and rather spectacularly so. Had you put your money into BTC, stocks, or a different miner that did deliver on time, you likely would have made money.  I can fully appreciate you being upset with the fact that you lost the profit potential, but this is not waldohoover's fault.

I think it depends on when you first saw the post. It was not purchased at the very beginning.  He collected orders until he got somewhere about 90% (I guess) of the slots filled.  Anyway, there was a number of slots and once he passed that threshold, he ordered.  He might have marked it as paid, because he did pay for it -- this is an important indicator to let you know the hardware order is in the queue!  And how did he pay for it? It might have been out of his own pocket, or it might have been using the BTC for shares received.  If I recall correctly, the cost per share * number of shares was more than the cost of the hardware.  In other words, I think there was a small profit per share, which he might have used to allow himself to order that hardware before filling all slots.  I don't know what he did with the extra BTC.  Maybe he put it in his pocket.  All I do know is that he didn't hide anything.  I could do the math and see there was a small premium over the actual cost of the hardware.


I never saw the December 31 date, either, until the expected date came and went.  But he never made any guarantees of delivery by the end of October or November.  Originally, I think the hardware was expected to be in at the end of October.  Whatever the case, the offer clearly said he cannot be responsible for the fact that the manufacturer does not deliver on time.  Had you purchased directly from HashFast, you'd be in the same boat you are now.  He's not misleading you here.

Nobody doing a group buy from a hardware manufacturer can guarantee delivery of the hardware.  Any group buy that says they will give you a full refund if the manufacturer does not deliver by some set date is not being entirely truthful.   Either that or they have very deep pockets and do not need your money.  If the latter, I doubt they would even offer a group buy.

Put yourself in his shoes.  Suppose you wanted to do a group buy like this.  Suppose you need to collect at least 90% of the funds from others before you have enough to order the hardware.  Then the manufacturer fails to deliver the hardware on time.  What would you be doing?  Will you pull out BTC out of your pocket and return it to everyone?  Remember, you didn't have enough money in your pocket to buy the hardware in the first place, so likely you could not.


Well, I honestly don't know what you want him to tell you.  He's one man setting up some miners and working with a bunch of yahoos from all over the world to make it happen.  He wrote the terms and conditions up front.  I understood them.  Most people understood them.  What is there to clarify that you honestly do not already know the answer to?


Well, he's not being compensated if the miners do not show up.  Well, except for that 3% charge that he'll take to issue a refund back to you.

Your point is valid that he should answer questions, but it's the types of questions and, dare I say, inflammatory complaining that is not something he should have to listen to.  He answered every question.  The problem is people did not like the answer.  The only guess I can see as to why people are complaining is nothing to do with his terms, but the fact they are angry that the manufacturer is late on the product.  So late, in fact, that it's likely not going to prove to be a significant ROI.

However, you cannot blame the man at the helm.  He did his job: he collected money, he purchased the miner, and he's waiting ... fully ready to go the day that box arrives.


So, you do understand he's doing the best he can.  I don't even know if the refund policy would be for the BTC you paid or the US$ equivalent of the BTC you paid.  I suspect this depends on the purchase terms with HashFast.  Arguably, they should return BTC, but they might be in a similar boat: they used that BTC to buy the hardware and don't have BTC to return.  But, they can re-sell the hardware to somebody else and then give a refund on it.  That suggests a US$ equivalent.

I almost hate bringing this part of the thread back to life again, but after reading so many comments asking for a refund and nitpicking over the wording of the offer, I just cannot help myself.

When waldohoover posted the offer, the terms were pretty clear.  He collects BTC from each person who wants to participate, he uses that BTC to purchase a miner, he then runs the miner for as long as there is a profit (or max 30 months), he then divides any BTC mined per share to each person.  He also said he takes no responsibility of HashFast does not deliver.  That statement is in no uncertain terms.  He has absolutely no control over HashFast.

There is a statement that refunds will be delivered in the event of a non-delivery.  However, "non-delivery" could be interpreted to mean "delivery by the date the manufacturer stated" or it can be interpreted to mean "it is never delivered".  In any case, while even I cannot state in certain terms what qualifies as non-delivery, logic would suggest that there was a shipment guarantee date.  HashFast definitely does that.  What folks have said was the guarantee date was December 31.  If it was sooner than that, then waldohoover would likely have already asked HashFast for a refund (after polling the shareholders).  He certainly has nothing personally to gain by sitting on his hands.  Logic would therefore suggest he cannot yet request a refund.

In any case, I think it's really poor form to pick over every word in the offer.  You're not dealing with a large corporation here with a team of lawyers who drew up a formal purchase contract.  It's a group of individuals informally going in together to have a go with a miner and, I think it's worth noting, purchasing only a "share" of a miner that might otherwise be too expensive for a person to buy and operate.

Frankly, I have to tip my hat to waldohoover for going through all the effort to set up a place to run the miners and do all the work.  He  had to put a certain amount of money on the table just to provide a place to make this possible.  That's money he is out of pocket.

So, please be respectful to the man and be patient.  He'll either have a miner working before long or you'll get a refund.

I have a bitcoind node running. One day, something happened and the database became corrupt. I had to re-download the entire block chain. Given the size now, that's a painful process.

So I decided to take a second, separate server and have it connect to the primary machine.  That way, I can have two copies of the block chain at all times, but with just one machine pulling transactions from the Internet.

On the main server, I put these lines in place:

   addnode=<secondary IP address>

On the secondary server, I put these lines in place:

    listen=1   # Necessary, otherwise it will not listen on 8333 with "connect" line present
    connect=<primary IP address>

I started each server and it worked beautifully... for a while.  There is a point where the connection gets closed.  I'm not sure why it gets closed, but it does.  After losing the connection, the secondary machine keeps trying to reconnect to the primary machine, but the main machine rejects the connection.  I checked and it has 8 active external connections, so I guess that's why.

My question is: how can I force the primary machine to accept that connection from the secondary machine after a disconnect? Or, how can I force it to connect to the secondary machine and keep trying indefinitely?  Is this a possible bug or just something I've not configured properly?

PS: Running version 0.8.5 on Linux.