|
Will need to check first to see if individuals in the U.S.A. are allowed to participate in this.
Apparently, it appears only high net worth individuals in the U.S.A. are allowed to invest in startup ventures.
|
|
|
|
Dear AMT, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, ON OR BEFORE 6/16/2014, DEFENDANTS SHALL ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
Now that 6/16 has passed, what was the answer you filed? Anyone have any new info? |
|
|
|
do they have the resource to cover for all of our cost with MPP ... does he own a house we can go after everything they own . cars jewelry ,, bitcoins what ever it is ...
Likely Bitcoins.... they've been mining with equipment they never shipped to customers. |
|
|
|
|
CEX.IO now has the majority of trading volume for IXC. We've got good volume for the past couple of weeks.
This is a *very* good sign. Don't look at the price... look at the fundamentals of the coin improving.
|
|
|
|
They all can't be bad. AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online. I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done. They are not interested. PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free. This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective. Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.
So let me get this straight. You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested? Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer? How are they supposed to do this? Talk about breach of fidiciuary duty. |
|
|
|
I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.htmlSo it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation. IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially. The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here. There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had. Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign. There is no changing the story. Let me clarify. AMT has most of the boards that were built. I hope that clears it up. Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole. I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT. Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware. Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs. That was IMET's scope of work. It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs. I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues. Also, usually some boards do come out bad, isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards? I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen. I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality. Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard'). I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support. I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning. Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT. Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly. I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT. Again, we built to print. We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this). The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection). Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs). I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked. We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here. One last thing that I forgot to address was rework. Yields were good, but every once in a while something would shift or a resistor or capacitor would tombstone. There are quite a few bad footprints on the hash boards by the way. If there were any assembly issues that did not pass IPC (Acceptability of Electronics Assemblies), we did the rework here in house before delivery to AMT. Once we were done, everything passed IPC class 2. So clearly, it seems improbable that AMT received 300 boards that have passed AOI only to have all of them fail. Unless, there is a complete different explanation as to what happened. |
|
|
|
|
Today is 6/16/2016 .... expect to see AMT issue a response to the class action lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.htmlSo it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation. IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially. The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here. There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had. Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign. There is no changing the story. Let me clarify. AMT has most of the boards that were built. I hope that clears it up. Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole. I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT. Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware. Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs. That was IMET's scope of work. It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs. I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues. Also, usually some boards do come out bad, isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards? I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen. I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality. Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard'). I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support. |
|
|
|
|
Today is 6/16/2016 .... waiting for an official response from AMT regarding the lawsuit.
|
|
|
|
I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.htmlSo it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation. IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially. The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here. There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had. Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign. Explain to me why two of the AMT press releases that mention IMET were both censored (i.e. not published)? Why did AMT hide the fact that IMET was their manufacturer? There are 50+ miners that are missing in the wild unaccounted for. If IMET were to be believed, AMT is running a farce that they are shipping known broken miners to customers to give the impression that (1) they have nothing but broken miners. (2) they are mining with customer hardware. That is the only conclusion that does make sense. We'll find out more when we get more details in the lawsuit. Well, explain to me how IMET should be a defendant in the lawsuit? How can AMT claim damages when they didn't pay in full for their parts? |
|
|
|
So the bitmine.ch board designs were used?
If that is the case that explains a lot given that there are several companies in the same sort of boat as AMT. The original designs from bitmine.ch from my understanding were pooched day one and a lot of rework was required on those designs that bitmine.ch provided along with the chips even though Bitmine.ch swore up and down they were working boards. Anyhow. The customers, AMT and IMET might want to get in the same room. Look for a sensible solution and this might be the end of the board woes for everyone but not the legal woes for AMT.
The thing is the issues in the other A1 cases were nothing like this. They had delays due to part issues sure...some had less than stellar performance...these were just flat out bursting into flames on quite a few levels. So even with IMET's explanation I remain a bit skeptical myself personally. The fact that boards sourced from other locations for other manufacturers work just fine but IMET's didn't is still kind of an oddity. If AMT had the designs from bitmine then they should have just worked just fine. Copy and duplicate. At least in theory. This is where things just dont add up when you look at the other issues with other manufactures. Why not contact IMET to get their side of the story? |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners,
As you suggested before from your post, please advise how you can refund me with 2 my miners.
Please response to my email.
Thank you,
Tony
AMT_Miners, Can you response to my email for refund option? I need this money as i indicated in my email my situation. hope you can understand. Thanks, Tony Yes someone will get back to you soon. If you've already emailed several times and no one has responded that is most likely because we currently do not know the answer until our legal matters dealt with. Technically everyone is in class, even you. You can thank Mr. Lenell for that one. That is not true, the judge still needs to approve the class action classification for the suit. Also, only those who can claim damages (like almost every AMT customer) can be in the suit. So if you get delivered something with satisfaction, then obviously you can't be part of the suit. Not true, if you read the complaint again I am pretty sure it says things about miners not arriving or arriving late and or not not receiving refunds. Intro section A. #3 #5 section F. heading: Defendants’ Failure to Deliver Purchased Bitcoin Miners and/or Rightfully Issue
Refunds. #81 section: CLASS ALLEGATIONS #84-88 If you deliver non-working bitcoin miners.... if you deliver a paper weight.... is that to be considered delivery? If you requested a refund and not given a refund. The seller is obligated to provide a refund if they don't deliver as promised. Doesn't matter if they delivered a fully functioning machine if it was delivered late. One of the grounds of the complaint is because the nature of bitcoin receiving a late miner means you were damaged. Obviously this is what would be argued, for and against, in court among many other things. If it was delivered and didn't work it was under a manufacturer warranty, there was no repair offer for months after the broken units shipped. So it would likely be looked at as a breach of contract. At least I would think Where the hell is biomech? His wife is a lawyer. Yeah and the refund thing seems pretty cut and dry. I don't know that it will go to trial. AMTs best bet during this time was take stock of everything they have in the way of assets. Present that to the lawyers for the 16th and offer to settle based on their currently held assets. If this goes to trial and they find there was a piercing of the corporate veil then they are pretty damn screwed. I'd be making that settlement even if it would be a meager one. Then it's on craigs legal team to decide to accept. I just know that if I were named as a plaintiff in that suit, I'd do everything in my power to settle. Especially if I was looking to run a company again in the future. Well maybe AMT lawyers will talk some sense in them. I've been telling them from the beginning to start settling with customers as soon as they can. That MPP that they have is going to kill them. Failing to deliver miners leads you to wire fraud by the FTC. Failing to comply with the MPP leads you to security fraud by the SEC. The fact that they've dissed the local county Consumer Affairs division and are about to diss the Pennsylvania Attorney General really isn't going to be great for them. To top that all, not only have they stiffed a lot of customers, they also stiffed their supplier. |
|
|
|
The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed. He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET. We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time. 2 of the 5 hash boards received worked. I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT. He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield. I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed. We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs. They worked fine out of the gate.
In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics. That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it. At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online. I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running. Unfortunately, it is not much. My hope is that AMT will come through with payment. If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design? Are these software fixes? Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board? I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions. All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered. I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely. I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point. I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole. We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis. I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole. I am looking for any and all suggestions. I am definitely a bit confused here. I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB, so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted. Anyway, based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped. As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners. The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not. So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. I can confirm that there are no changes to the PCBs. I also do not know what AMT shipped. I do know that AMT has the bulk of the boards in their possession. With the work that I have done, they could put together units that work and would last. As mentioned, I would need to be made whole by AMT to share the info with AMT but I don't think that AMT is interested based on our last communication. I think what I want to know is, since you are interested in the bitcoin business and since it appears miners are being made by you based on the bitmine design, will you be designing your own miners? You have the technical know how, you'd just need to source chips and away you go assembling even if you went with some cheaper chips using a larger die. I would be interested in possibly purchasing an IMET branded miner. Two current issues (1) IMET has to figure out how to recover loses for non-payment and what to do with 600 AMT boards and parts. (2) Using another chip like Cointerra may be an option. You can run the numbers, at this time I don't think the retail business is viable. Everyone is getting out off this business. |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners,
As you suggested before from your post, please advise how you can refund me with 2 my miners.
Please response to my email.
Thank you,
Tony
AMT_Miners, Can you response to my email for refund option? I need this money as i indicated in my email my situation. hope you can understand. Thanks, Tony Yes someone will get back to you soon. If you've already emailed several times and no one has responded that is most likely because we currently do not know the answer until our legal matters dealt with. Technically everyone is in class, even you. You can thank Mr. Lenell for that one. That is not true, the judge still needs to approve the class action classification for the suit. Also, only those who can claim damages (like almost every AMT customer) can be in the suit. So if you get delivered something with satisfaction, then obviously you can't be part of the suit. Not true, if you read the complaint again I am pretty sure it says things about miners not arriving or arriving late and or not not receiving refunds. Intro section A. #3 #5 section F. heading: Defendants’ Failure to Deliver Purchased Bitcoin Miners and/or Rightfully Issue
Refunds. #81 section: CLASS ALLEGATIONS #84-88 If you deliver non-working bitcoin miners.... if you deliver a paper weight.... is that to be considered delivery? If you requested a refund and not given a refund. The seller is obligated to provide a refund if they don't deliver as promised. |
|
|
|
AMT_Miners,
As you suggested before from your post, please advise how you can refund me with 2 my miners.
Please response to my email.
Thank you,
Tony
AMT_Miners, Can you response to my email for refund option? I need this money as i indicated in my email my situation. hope you can understand. Thanks, Tony Yes someone will get back to you soon. If you've already emailed several times and no one has responded that is most likely because we currently do not know the answer until our legal matters dealt with. Technically everyone is in class, even you. You can thank Mr. Lenell for that one. That is not true, the judge still needs to approve the class action classification for the suit. Also, only those who can claim damages (like almost every AMT customer) can be in the suit. So if you get delivered something with satisfaction, then obviously you can't be part of the suit. |
|
|
|
I'm really surprised that you are not the least bothered that you got a 1 GH/s machine and not a 1.2 TH/s machine. AMT should still owe you 4 months worth of MPP, plus a faster machine. |
|
|
|
The thing is I ordered it 6 months ago from AMT, and I got this just today. I was supposed to get an AMT miner and not a miner from another company. P.S. They are listed as an Authorized Distributor on http://bitmine.ch/authorized-distributors/ , maybe they just decided to start shipping these instead. That's because they stiffed the original manufacturer (IMET) so the best they can deliver is a miner from Bitmine. At least your stuff works, my stuff doesn't work and I ordered it back in December. |
|
|
|
A 1000w PSU? Sounds too weak. Bitmain Coindesk unit.... notice the red backplane. Also the graphics says Bitmine.ch So they ship you 1 GHs unit? What the hell! |
|
|
|
The thing is that when I power it on, the red panel on the front of the miner lights up, and that is it, no noise, nothing, even the Ethernet port doesn't flash which you can see at the front of the miner when i plug in the internet cable. Am I doing something wrong or missing some steps out?
Open it up and see if all the connections are connected. Its possible something came loose in shipping check everything connects properly and snug, ESPECIALLY the SDcard as I think that could be the issue. That would be the first step. If all the connections are there (take pics of the inside too please?) then if the miner still does not work after checking all the connections....pull the sdcard and check that its loaded up. I can walk you through more steps on what to do next based on that. Might mean creating an image of the SDCard and uploading it. I can take a look at the logs and such since you have not configured anything there is nothing of importance on there yet. Looks like you got a Bitmine Coindesk unit:  compare to what you got:  |
|
|
|
The customer came in with a half built unit with 5 hash boards installed. He received the unit earlier in the day (just about 4 weeks ago or so) and brought it to IMET. We did not try to power the unit. Instead, we took it all apart and tested one hash board at a time. 2 of the 5 hash boards received worked. I showed the customer how to test hash boards and gave him a rack of hash boards right from our stock that were never delivered to AMT. He went through the whole rack and saw 100% yield. I gave him 3 working hash boards, and we spent 3 weeks working the pieces of the design that were flawed. We never laid a soldering iron on the PCBs. They worked fine out of the gate.
In the 3 weeks that we were working on the system, there were no problems with the electronics. That particular unit has much more than 4 days on it. At this point, I suspect, it has closer to 10 days as we were running prior to making it available online. I have a machine shop making parts for us now as we are duplicating to get the rest of what we have here running. Unfortunately, it is not much. My hope is that AMT will come through with payment. If not, I'll see what I can whittle away from their bill using other means. Could you explain in some more details of what this customer needed to do to fix the flaws in the design? Are these software fixes? Are these how the heat sinks are mounted on the board? I am not sure how to handle this, and I am looking for suggestions. All I ever wanted was for AMT to pay for services rendered. I thought that doing this work would create that effect, but based on AMT feedback, this is not likely. I have put my time and thousands more into the project to get to this point. I know that the AMT customer I worked with is happy at this point (the unit you see is mining into his wallet), but just like everyone else, I want to be whole. We are pushing 30 employees that need to get paid on a bi-weekly basis. I am afraid that if I just release the design, then I will never be made whole. I am looking for any and all suggestions. I am definitely a bit confused here. I had thought that there were no changes on the PCB, so the only possible changes are software fixes or changes in how the heat sink was mounted. Anyway, based on our records, only 11 miners were shipped. As I understand, IMET shipped around 300 boards, equivalent to 60 miners. The whereabouts of those remaining miners is unknown at this point and is anybody's guess as to weather these are used for mining or not. So I am not sure who would benefit from this new information. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
