I'd argue that the value of the goods has not risen. The goods ordered didn't and don't exist. The expectation would be that they would be developed. The specification have been drastically altered. BFL offered to switch existing orders over to what was actually produced. Even with higher production costs they've been giving full credit to existing orders in exchange for them accepting the power hungry tech. This is still has no bearing on the issue being discussed.

Which is "what type of contract" is the sale and "how can damages be defined"

He meant you dude.

Thank you for the well researched post! These are becoming a rare thing on these forums.

I would like to add that the damages incurred can be very difficult to prove when a firm delivery date isn't specified. So unless the buyer actually purchased another product to cover lack of delivery I don't see how someone would be able to prove damage. It's also my understanding that this purchase would have to be effectively mandated by lack of delivery rather than a choice made by the buyer. The example would be a contract to purchase flour (the buyer runs a bakery) and when the seller doesn't deliver the baker would have to get expedited delivery of flour from another source.

We're sort of running out people to troll here I think... This is a popcorn thread for us.

No. I won't mess with escrow... sorry. Trust me or not... but at this rate you might as well go with an exchange and a bank wire... relative to the time you've spent so far.

I agree complete. Which was my entire point - both my scenario and the original one of X trying to sue BFL are inane and based on exactly the same reasoning.

Except there isn't a signed contract. Only an implied one in the sense that he delivered money up front and BFL would provide him with a product once they were created / produced. I would say legally, until they get to the point where they would have his order ready they can still back out of the deal.

In the same vein:

Lets assume that X's grounds for suit is valid in it's premise. (which imo it isn't).
Lets assume that X would win the suit.
Lets assume that BFL gets a judgement it can afford to pay.

So BFL pays X, his lawyer takes a good portion of it... everything is settled.

Now instead of assuming BFL pays him, lets look at what happens if they either honestly can't afford to pay him... or decide to use him as an excuse to roll up shop. Now they're declaring bankruptcy...

X gets paid some or all of his damages award and shortly afterwards all the other other pre-order customers who will never get a product file civil suits against X for depriving them of a working product which BFL would have been able to provide eventually if he hadn't put them out of business. Does X's previous award cover the potential damages from nobody else getting the product?

That's why this whole thing is based on a false premise.

There wasn't a forward contract for the simple reason that there isn't anything in the pre-order paperwork that specifies it as a forward contract. Modifications to a 'standard' must be specified. In this case they weren't. The standard repudiation for any sort of failed sales contract (except forward contract) is a return of the purchased item combined with a refund  of the purchase price (for a very good reason). You cannot legally compel an entity to provide a good or service to customer who they don't want to provide that good or service to.

Now if his place in line had been moved down... and that had led to his asshattery and refund that might be a different story, in this example he would be able to recover damages from them moving his place in line... but still not from the refund.

Pfft. You say bitcoin makes us go blind. I say greed makes you act stupid.

BFL never pretended they had a working asic product. They straight up told us it was in development and offered us a chance to buy it before it was made. The never said they wouldn't use pre-order money to fund development and most of us who pre-ordered assumed that's where the money was going.

So they didn't deliver on time according to estimates... they also aren't very good on keeping us posted on what exactly is happening on the development front... as long as they get it sorted in the near future I'll take the best offering on the block even a year later than I expected it.

The reason you only see the asshats getting refunds is because they don't really have a clue what they're buying. What BFL is selling isn't just a pretty box. It's the most power efficient miner ever made. As long as BFL delivers power consumption in an acceptable range... that's what we're buying.

It doesn't really matter when they arrive. Sure it sucks for people who went small expecting to 'ride the wave' and just ordered a jally or two. But those of us who actually invested larger amounts of money in pre-orders aren't refunding. Because as soon as my ~600 gh of singles arrive... that's when all the avalon customers will start whining about profitability.  They'll be forced to power down and unplug or lay out massive amounts of money later on to stay profitable... while those of us with BFL products will be sitting here mining, making the expected returns - long after lesser offerings are unplugged due to electric costs.

Nobody with real money in bfl pre-orders will refund partly because it would simply be moronic at this (late) stage of the development process and partly because the worst thing that could happen to bitcoin right now would be BFL folding up due to lack of operating costs, and everyone being stuck with inferior product a la avalon.

IMO if you had the hashing power of a pool, you're better off solo mining.

Couple of reasons why.

You don't have to trust the pool op.
You don't have to pay pool fees.
You get to keep the tx fees.
You limit points of failure.

Being a bit of a self proclaimed expert on Stirling engines this offering while pretty is clearly a scam.

You might be able to design a stirling engine to act as a heat pump, but it has moving parts that require regular service and lubrication. It's a single piston system. Thus it creates noise and constant vibrations that you would never want attached or even in the same mounting plate as electronic equipment. It would literally shake anything apart given enough time and the vibration would cause noise.

   

As a general rule - shoot for 6 months and expect 10 months if you don't reinvest.

by any reasonable measure 120% a year is an insane return on investment.

or you could... you know just start cgminer and let it track down the fpga itself.

I find it utterly insane that people are willing to buy a blade but insist on using wifi for the connection. ffs run some cat-5e and be done with wifi related issues.

This is a line of business thing, once you start investing money into mining you should stop thinking of it as a hobby and start using appropriate technology to support your needs.

I guess there are suckers born every minute.

Unhackable paper wallets aside...

At worst you're setting up some sort of scam : at best you're duplicating services that everyone already has access to.

There's no added value here and thus no legitimate profit potential.

I'm be willing to do this - but I won't allow escrow. Drop me a pm for the payment address if you're interested ~an hour after you send btc I'll put that 100 into WU.

What you've described is in fact a very specific type of sales contract usually called a "forward contract" - If the buyer could produce such a contact then there would be a legitimate case for damages incurred. However, never was any such contract offered by BFL... so I doubt the OP has such.

I think you're greatly underestimating the greed of the people building these devices.

The only way this turns into a "cheaper for faster" scenario is if someone steals an existing design - downsizes it to a much smaller process and straight up sets the price at something reasonable - then you might see a price war.

~

As far as coming late to the game - I agree... the only strategy that would provide for success is if the project is entirely privately funded (investors with very deep pockets) and as soon as they have a working design they start cranking out units and reduce the process.

What's needed is something in 45nm range (or less) to really make a killing as a hardware designer.

Looks legit. I'd wait for finished products offered through escrow.

But then I wouldn't buy any avalon based product... bad tech is still bad... even when it's the only tech that actually exists.

Exactly what damage would he be able to claim? Anyone is able to cancel a sales contract at will unless the contract actually has terms that prevent it. There simply isn't a case here. Only if the seller had kept the money and the product... then there would be damage to be claimed. With a forced refund there's literally no case.