Am I reading this right?

The difficulty growth rate over the last 3 months has been about 100%/month.

So even if I get a 60 GH/s BFL miner (EDIT: at $1299, before the price increase), and start mining on October 1, with free electricity (which I don't have), assuming the 100% growth rate per month continues for the next year, then at the current exchange rate, it only just barely breaks even? A.K.A. Zero ROI.

(Mining dashbord.)

No.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192916.msg3184148#msg3184148

(Not linked in OP.)

I'm not disputing your other points, though.

Please post the date you requested your refund, so the rest of us have another data point to try to figure out how far into the refund queue has been processed.

(Obviously it would be better if steamboat would just tell us...)

I have not yet received refunds, for refund requests submitted on Sat 9/14.

(One of two was resubmitted on Sun 9/15, due to lack of confirmation in the browser window the first time. Possibly a browser issue.)

As I read it, he does not specify whether the "next gen" chips used would be from Avalon or not.


I will say for the record, that if the next gen design uses Avalon (next gen) chips, that greatly reduces my interest, and I'll probably pass. Using another vendor's chips (possibly with an adapter) is probably less likely to be technically feasible, but it's the only way I'd be interested, since I don't want to support Avalon anymore.

This is the idea I was alluding to above:



It seems to me that it doesn't really speak to that possibility. He said that no one would be forced to take a refund. That leaves open the possibility that some people who want a refund will not get it, but it doesn't rule out the alternative of LSD taking a refund for some variable number of chips.


I think it's the default reading that leaves us to figure some will get screwed, but I agree it's an open question.


++

And steamboat, please answer this open question.

I don't think your clarification here makes any difference to my points.


Avalon isn't giving partial refunds or sending partial batches, so if I read you right, now you are actually suggesting that steamboat should front the money for the refunds.


Do expect the problem of a partial batch refund request to happen. This is a known issue. The only way around it I can think of is if steamboat personally requests a refund for some portion of his chips, the amount of which is dependent on how many other people request refunds.

But what do you mean "earlier batches wait the longest"? There is no correlation. The refunds are completely decoupled from the refund requests, and that is the point.

Unless you mean people in earlier batches wait longer to decide because it's less clear if they will ROI? Too bad, it is their risk in waiting to decide. By allowing them to cut in line as I described, they are offloading their risk onto those who decide sooner. That is most certainly not fair.


Well, first let's be clear: the situation is not fair, and that's Avalon's fault. So, it's a question of what can we do that is the least unfair.

With that said: yes, as I've explained, I do think that is the least unfair option.

Besides the implementation problems, you've not presented a compelling case as to why first mover advantage of buying into the group buy should confer the same for getting out. I think your objection is "just you".


Now here you have a point, but your proposed solution has nothing to do with these problems.



As it happenes, yes I am in a later batch. However, I also only just requested my refund over the weekend. So, in my estimation, it won't make much difference to me personally.

FWIW, in a completely unrelated (non-Bitcoin) group investment, I recently insisted on taking a smaller portion of the returns personally, because I felt it was the right thing to do. The person running the investment had suggested a larger share for me, and I told him that I should get less.

I call them like I see them, and I'm saying that my personal financial interest here has no bearing on my argument.

Care to admit your own bias?


I completely agree about the transparency, and I'm disappointed at the lack of it. But your proposal of "FIFO by batch order" has no bearing on this, either.

alfabitcoin, what you propose would not be fair. Also, if steamboat were to try to implement that...since only those who request refunds are getting them, every time someone new requests a refund, he would be "cutting in line".

Worse, due to the line cutting, that means people in later batches who request refunds would be eligible one minute, but ineligible the next, when someone in an earlier batch requests a refund.

The current implementation is FIFO--based on who requests the refund first, not on who ordered first. And that is fair.

(Emphasis mine.)

All customers, regardless of whether they request or receive the 25% assembly refund?

Is there a downside to opting for the 25% assembly refund? Or, is there a potential upside to not requesting it?

(Emphasis mine.)

It says it's an option, not the default. I suspect there would be a shipping charge for receiving the parts, since the most recent update says he's offering 100% refund of the shipping fees.

I know there is a lot to read here, but I'm sorry to say you didn't follow the instructions in the OP:


If there is any recourse for you, I think it will have to be steamboat making a special exception. Good luck.

Don't reply.

Glad I could help. Thanks for explaining. Hope I wasn't unnecessarily rude.

NO!

You are not thinking this through, and/or you didn't read the update carefully. Steamboat requesting the refund for the latest-ordered batch allows this group buy to maintain the earliest spots in Avalon's queue possible. Then the funds received from the refund will be distributed to those in the group buy who requested them, and all others move up in our queue.

1. Transactions button.
2. Right click, Show transaction details.
3. Copy the transaction ID.
4. Go to blockchain.info, and search for the transaction ID.

I'm interested to know if there's a simpler way.

I agree on the partly, but not that they've done their part.

I've explained how losing your place in queue is adding one wrong to another, and that by refunding the first batches before the later ones (or if you display it as such), you're letting Avalon off easy, and allowing this mess to be partly swept under the rug. You appear to be disagreeing with me, but offering no real argument to support your point.


Mixed how?


I most certainly disagree about the "off the hook" part. He's taken one step in the right direction.

Anyway, if you still disagree with me, perhaps the most neutral way to display things will be to show the refunds separately, and not assign them to individual orders in your OP? Then readers can draw their own conclusions.

tiros, thanks for putting this together. I do agree that refund requests and completion should be tracked in the OP.

However, I don't think that FIFO is the fair way to do it. Seems like it's letting Yifu off easy--which appears to be what's he's trying to make happen.

Suppose you had two spots in Avalon's queue (among many other buyers), and Yifu says, "sorry we're delayed, you'll have to give up your first spot (refund), but keep your second," (EDIT: which is behind many other buyers) would you really think that was fair? The buying should remain FIFO (first-come, first served); thus the refunds should be LIFO. This also shows the full extent of the delay, which I think is appropriate.

You cannot rightly claim the spreadsheet as evidence for your claim without rebutting my counterpoints: