I don't think anyone really thinks the video was faked— it was pretty clearly the hashfast pcb.  Though I'd certainly like to see the video again. Care to re-post it iCEBREAKER or is being helpful not part of your repertoire?

I'm afraid you missed the subsequent:

I didn't however, thus my comment.

I apologize for my assumption, please allow me to revise:
As far as I can tell only person currently expressing any form of actively negative view of CoinTerra in this thread is a tireless promoter of Hashfast who is not a CoinTerra customer.
Is that better?
Cheers.

Ha. Some people expressed that kind of pessimism up-thread and it was rapidly pointed out that doing something that overly dishonest would be a Christmas present since it would remove any doubt over if they were acting in good faith or not. There is no way thats going to happen.

Probably the hardest thing to come to grips with is that the world isn't really stuffed full of manically cackling villains— though I suppose there are a few.  The mess for batch 1 HF customers is probably not a result of some great evil plot, and they almost certainly aren't about to ship miners full of kryptonite, regardless of how awesome a scene it would make "Bitcoin: The Movie".

If you're trying to guess what might happen, you'd probably be best of imagining a bunch of well intentioned people getting caught behind and making a heroic effort to make it all right. Even if thats not completely true, you can be darn sure they'll do their best to make it appear to be.

There aren't any irritated CoinTerra customers, not a single one— as far as I can tell, and I even asked. CoinTerra has, apparently, made right by their customers— at least for now.

The only thing I disallowed there was your all caps red bolded whatever-the-heck-that-was and people bringing other vendors into the discussion (which was, the same thing I did in the HF threads).


Okay, so who are you then? There is no mystery who I am. I think some transparency might resolve some of your complaints far better than what appears your preferred direction— of silencing anyone who is concerned, afraid, or angry from expressing their irritation or uncertainty.

You mean up-voting. "Banning" account selling wouldn't stop it— it would only make it more effective because then fewer people would believe its happening.

The best we could probably do is have an "account recovery code"... every account gets a magic code which can't be changed, which can be used to claw back the account at any time. This would make selling accounts slightly less safe because people could claw them back after payment was made.

I dunno if locking the thread will help— after all 99.9% of the thread is people pointing out that this is a scam, but I'm glad to go ahead and do so.

Rats, if only it weren't for you meddling kids!

What the hell are you talking about?

I removed pages of people complaining about _other_ companies to another thread precisely to allow hashfast customers to continue to discuss their predicament (though— not with much progress sadly, considering the lack of information from hashfast itself).

It's not a promotion, it's removal of offtopic stuff, and I even received PM thanks for it from some of the other hashfast customers who have silently been trying to follow the thread... The subject matter was still generally on-topic for the subforum and clearly touched on some things that some people felt the need to vent about.

I can assure you that were I intending to punish the HashFast company it would be via mechanisms more effective then helping other hashfast customers continue to discuss how screwed they are without the thread being made unreadable by agent provocateurs or whatever the hell trolling rubbish goes on around here.

Wherever did you get these ideas in any case? "But he doesn't care, as he is too emotionally invested in harming HashFast in any way possible" —    do you also think that obama personally listens in on you when you shower?

ASICminer blades implement getwork incorrectly, no shock it was banned.

Anyone save a copy? Might have something interesting in the background. e.g. dates displayed on machine readouts.

It's done under the guise of protecting the people they've already sold to.

An uncharitable take is that since KNC themselves owns and operates a huge amount of hashpower what it's really protecting is themselves. Why sell miners when you can mine yourself? Well if people will pay yesterday's price for hardware when tomorrows difficulty is going to be much higher…

Do not ask altcoin questions, they will be moved to the altcoin subforum.

No, with 29% hashpower a double spending attack would have a 60% success rate on confirmed transactions. The fact that the success rate isn't 100% would just mean that they'd need their profits when successful to be at least 17 BTC in order to make up for the cost of a lost block (less if they don't have to pay their miners for orphans).
 

FWIW, the question in the topic is confused.  The question shouldn't be "600 GH/s how long is it good for?" it should be "0.6J/GH how long is it good for?" since absolute hashrate has nothing at all to do with hour long you can usefully mine with it, but power consumption sure does. Any answer on the lifetime will ultimately be mostly conjecture, but at least its a sensible question once framed in terms of power.

Absolutely. The problem is that "give more hashpower" alone doesn't eliminate the potential lawsuits. "Your choice of refund or more hashpower" probably would, but I would worry that there is enough distrust now that people wouldn't take the hashpower even if it was the better deal in terms of the numbers.

The problem with "give more hashpower" is that its expensive and doesn't assure the company that the risk of lawsuits will go away.

A better path would be to offer the a choice of a full 1:1 refund in BTC as if the sale had never been made or enough additional hashpower that most customers would choose the latter.

The problem is that the 1:1 refund at this point would be a hard deal to match and I suspect that many people now believe the original October claims were flat out dishonest, making promises of further hash-power later unattractive.

This is what I was referring to earlier on the thread about there being potentially no clean solution. A half measure doesn't remove hashfast's legal exposure, and a full measure may not be within their ability to afford.

We permit self-moderated threads for a reason— too.

I believe their contract always specified EXWORKS Hashfast's facility... So the customer's eat the shipment volatility.  This is— unlike many of the other things alleged to be 'standard'— actually fairly standard.

Gah. People there were pulling a prank. Relax. The power supplies are still 20,000 watts.

The terms didn't just change on batch boundaries, unfortunately. The story is somewhat complicated as a result and there were conflicting commitments of differing character at differing times in different locations.