Negative ratings on bitcointalk.org. 

That'll sure show them. 

(Of course give them negative trust, but really, does that get your bitcoins back?)

And just a small little aside here...

We're missing very important data points on taking a decision about refunds, namely:

1) when and how the company will make good on the MPP, and;

2) when the company will ship (paid) upgrade boards, and;

3) what the final specs of the equipment are.

I think a reasonable person would see these as mitigating circumstances vis-a-vis Hashfast's insistence that you cancel within 15 days, because without those clarifications, many customers don't have sufficient information to make an informed decision, and the company seems to be deliberately withholding this information.

Maybe so.  But if a large proportion of the B1 customers got together in something like, say, the "Hashfast Customers Protection Union", set up a nice website, agreed to and made reasonable demands of the company - for information and compensation - then I think we could get something even better.  

Like some nice articles in the national press.  All this interest in BTC that has generated miner orders is interest that can also focus attention on problems at miner companies.  Hell, the NYT ran a feature on a mining company last week.  

Headline:  "Bitcoin mining company sees its customers rebel"  or "San Francisco bitcoin startup faces backlash from angry customers".

If you mean that if a BJ earns 2 BTC in 90 days, but I paid 60 BTC for it, then HF should give me 58 BTC, I think that's not one that the company is likely to agree to.

So I guess the BTC payers generally want to exercise option A?  

That is, bitch and moan about getting BTC back, and then probably 95% of you will never file suit.  This means Hashfast learned well from BFL.  History repeats itself.  Eduardo and Fisting Porn dude chuckle and pat themselves on the back, send a thank you note to Inaba.

With option C, however, we have a chance at negotiating better deal.  So, better deal for all, or possibly BTC refund for a few people, less lawyer's fees, who have the balls to sue?

Cedivad, I understand your points, but I don't think your suit is responsive to the situation of people who paid in USD.  People who paid in USD cannot sue to "get their bitcoins back".  So, we can't 'work together' with a lawsuit with your approach. Also, saying that each and every person should sue is a bit silly, as you yourself have noted that the lawsuit route, even if successful, is unlikely to be cost effective for smaller customers.

I don't disrepect your position Cedivad - I think it's a perfectly reasonable response for you - but let's not pretend it really will solve anyone else's problems.

Okay, so this post may offend a little, but...

Now that you guys who paid with BTC are (predictably) in the same boat as us guys who paid in USD (i.e. at best you can hope for USD value back), is there more willingness to cooperate in making demands of Hashfast?

It seems to me that you can:

a) stomp and rage and try to get the same BTC back, probably just huffing and puffing here or, at best, winding up in court, or;

b) accept whatever deal Hashfast decides to impose on you (i.e. keep bending over and taking it), or;

c) all of us work together to force the bastards to release more and faster hashpower under the MPP to all of us.

I have been advocating greater cooperation for a while.  But this BTC refund issue has gotten in the way.

I vote for "C".  And I think we should contact all of the customers (we have their e-mails), and as many of us as will join should collectively go to Hashfast and make demands. Agree among ourselves on a position (say, 8x MPP by 1 March), sign a letter together, and then send a delegation to San Francisco (maybe D&T, if he would volunteer, to head it) to sit down the management and have a little chat.

I think "C" is really the only option for those who don't want to bend over and who are not truly prepared to sue for BTC refunds.  And, of note, I see no reason why engaging with Hashfast in this manner now would impede anyone's potential ability to allege fraud in a court of law with regard to to October delivery or the terms of the MPP at a later date (well, reasonably close later date).

Excellent.  Thank you.  Once I get some hardware (assuming they ship some hardware), I'll try it out and let you know how it goes.

If you get an icon in the taskbar after you launch, keep fiddling with the right click business (after you select "move" run the cursor up to the upper left).  Took me a while to get it.  Then again, I'm not a Windows dude, so it's all a challenge for me.

The CEO and fisting porn purveyor marketing department have banned him, since his early chip testing tweets were too frank.



I certainly don't think a 1 board BJ could put out 1200gh, but I can see a recent average around 1100-1150 that I think could be a BJ with two boards or, as others have pointed out more pessimistically, a Sierra.

But none of that means I've remotely forgotten about the October lies, nor that I plan to let HF off the hook for them. Pitchfork is simply resting while we watch the drama unfold.

The cold fusion reactor produces more than enough power for 1.2th.  The Seasonic thing is a new, uber-secret unicorn generation device.

I still think they popped another board into the BJ for testing.  If, in the real world,  the additional hardware farked up their airflow or overtaxed some component, and there's a fix, they want to know now. 

Who else here is planning to ditch the Raspberry Pi and use another controller?

Mine very annoyingly opens off-screen every time.  Shift-right click on the taskbar icon and see if you can move the window onto your desktop.

Outside chance it's a BJ with two modules.

In fact, thinking, that makes sense to me.  They've gotta be sure the upgrade kit will work before shipping the BJ box. So test the BJ with two boards and the shipping power supplies, etc.

It's this kind of question that causes me to despair at the situation.  Hashfast's customers, having been offered the opportunity to work together on issues like this (since we now know who all the B1 customers are), instead seem 300% determined to behave like a herd of cats, each off doing their own crazy thing.

A more united front would probably force them to include the full module set, but crazy wingnuts that we are, off living our own fantasies, it leaves the door open for them to continue abuses.

+1

Apologies if this is the wrong place - I didn't see a separate CGMiner for Mac thread.

Is anyone else considering using CGMiner for Mac with (finally shipping?) Hashfast hardware?  

CGMiner for Mac seems to be immediately updated with other CGMiner releases (thanks!) and, I assume, includes CGMiner mods for HF.  Correct?

I assume that Asteroid, as it relies on an older CGMiner build, will not work with HF hardware.

Oh, no.  With all the bullshittery and lying from Hashfast about October, if they don't produce 4 boards for the MPP, I'll go ballistic.

But here I present a simple recipe - one that I've been promoting for a while - for happiness, peace, and love between Hashfast and its customers:


Hashfast Happiness (serves each order for 1 Baby Jet under the MPP)

Ingredients

• 1 reliably working Baby Jet
• 4 "Golden Nonce" brand miniboards, also working
• Two tablespoons of improved marketing ethics
• A dash of contrite humility

First, deliver working Baby Jet to each destination immediately, add at least one dash of humility to improve palatability for hungry customers.

Second, unambiguously commit to delivering the four (4) working, fully-populated MPP "Golden Nonce" brand miniboards at the earliest possible opportunity, in any event no later than 1 March (but hopefully much earlier).

Third, self-administer two tablespoons of improved marketing ethics.  This means no more October false promise bullshittery, and may mean replacing Mr. Animal Porn in the marketing department.

Mix all together, perform in accordance with commitments, and enjoy the warm glow of happier customers and a restored reputation.

Well, we actually don't know the reality.  They could have ordered more, less, earlier, later. But if a large percentage of Batch 1 asked the question directly, we might find out the facts. This would have great bearing on a reasonable solution.

Except that there are a number of people that paid in USD, including at least one guy in this thread that paid over $100,000 USD.  So, do you mean that people who paid the equivalent - at the date of sale - of BTC 60 for a BJ should be refunded BTC 60?  Or $700 x 60 = $42,000?  If so, I agree.  If not, then we have a division between people who paid USD and people who paid BTC. And it may be unrealistic.

We know they can't literally ship at the same time, but we can certainly - if we work together - obtain more information on their delivery schedules and make them a proposal.



At this point, this is really the same question as #2.  I agree that both are possible solutions, we need to know more about what's happening behind the scenes.

Sigh. 

So long as everybody lives out their own fantasy about what Hashfast is up to - paranoid or not - we're at their mercy.

Rather than each theorizing about what evil plot is in the making, if we instead focused on agreeing among ourselves about what corrective action should be taken...

Agreed.  But, even better, especially for the smaller fish like me:  Organize and engage them collectively - at least initially outside the legal system.  If they get communication from an organized group representing 20, 30, 40% or more of their B1 customer base, they have to pay attention.


Nice to hear from you, Dave.