A member of the forum, with high community trust, should be tasked with assembling the e-mail addresses and creating a blinded forum (not here, maybe its own web interface) where B1 customers can listserv one another to discuss delivery and MPP issues.  Of course, opt-out should be offered.  Or, have an opt-in at the beginning.  

It will scare Hashfast shitless, but it will also enable us to constructively and collectively engage with Eduardo and Company.  I believe that they should pay for their lies about October, but I don't want to put them out of business and don't want to file a lawsuit unless all other options are exhausted.  

Get some like-minded people together, who could flex some muscle if they represented a goodly portion of the B1 customer base.

I said hopefully.  And if you haven't turned off autoloading images in your e-mail yet (I did years ago), then I guess now is the time to do it!

Making lemonade out of lemons, the upside is in organizing the batch one customers.  You think Hashfast is feeling pressure now?  What if they got a letter about the MPP signed by a very large number of their customers?

And I have G-J's e-mail.  OoopsFast.

If this does come down to lawsuits, let me tell you, having their full B1 customer list will be a godsend to finding plaintiffs and suing them in a organized, rational fashion. Cedivad's lawyer is popping champagne corks.

Hopefully Hashfast's customers won't want to scam each other, so the fears of that may be overblown.

I dunno.

Fedex itself flies in and out of Mirabel (Montreal's other airport), and the schedule says its planes come and go in morning.

Cargojet, apparently flying for UPS, has a departure to Cincinnati (UPS hub) from Mirabel at 2250.  I suspect 400 BJs would about fill that 727!

Ah, being too optimistic again...

1555 in Montreal and no reports of tracking numbers in the wild.

AF345 to Paris @ 1635
AC874 to Frankfurt @ 1735
KL672 to Amsterdam @ 1900
AF347 to Paris @ 1915
TS510 to Paris @ 1935
AC832 to Brussels @1940
AC864 to London @ 1945
AC870 to Paris @ 1955
AC630 to Geneva @ 2010
BA94   to London @ 2010
TS584 to Paris @ 2110
QR764 to Doha @ 2200

August delivery would clearly be too late to accept.

What it is trying to say is that if I called John before I made a purchase, and he told me something misleading, that the TOS agreement replaces anything he told me.  But that only applies to purchase made under that version of the TOS (and may not be legally enforceable, if John told you some whopper lie that you can document).

Again, it doesn't matter if Hashfast revises the TOS 94,183 times and writes in Viking runes or Hindi.  The version of the TOS that governs your purchase is the version of the TOS that you agreed to when you made the purchase - not any subsequent revision.

In other words, subsequent revisions are not applicable to your purchase.

(Somewhat confounding that - Hashfast had one version of the TOS online when I ordered, and then sent me a different version of the TOS with my order confirmation!  Morons!)

What an f'ing mess.  

Although there are things that only HF knows, assuming the company really has a working miner, lately I keep concluding that Hashfast's least worst option is to double down on the MPP.  If they don't, it's not a question of if they will be sued, it's only a question of when - January 3, 4, 5? Or shortly thereafter. And the likelihood of those suits being more expensive and damaging to HF than "giving away" extra boards is high.

If they can just put working miners in peoples' hands in the next few days and, having done that, unambiguously pledge enough more MPP boards (like 8x or something) delivered faster to MPP customers, then it's going to defuse 85, 90, 95% of the bloodlust.  And they can compete with KNC et al moving forward without the dark cloud of hate hovering over them.

I don't see many other options.  Stonewalling and abusing your customers ala BFL just isn't going to work for the boys from San Francisco.

Early in the Hashfast delivery saga, shortly after they failed to ship in late October, I disagreed with Cedivad and others, giving Hashfast the benefit of the doubt.  I was a moderate, taking the "reasonable" position that a slight delay was understandable, and that we should bear with them while they ironed out final issues.

Since then, it has become abundantly clear that they never had any ability or serious intent to ship in October. That date was fraudulent from the beginning, and was proffered to a) boost sales to begin with, and b) to boost sales at a higher price.

I think this is an inescapable conclusion now.  And I was a moderate into November.

Shit, I'd be happy to be stuck in Upper Tzatzikistan for an extra week, provided I had enough pita bread.

More seriously, my unstated assumption there was that "delivery" could be construed to include situations in which the product would arrive under ideal circumstances - customs, weather, broken airplanes, etc... aside.

It's a tough row to hoe, but they can still make it for most of the planet if they ship in the next couple days.  

Express out of Montreal in time to catch the PM flights over the Atlantic ... North America and Europe easily, even if shipping Saturday.  Most of Asia too.  Major cities in other places probably as well.  Not cheap, but possible.  I'd expect that covers 90% or more of their orders.

Pass the popcorn and Merry Christmas, fellas!

Yeah, patsy pincushion sure did vanish when the Q&A thread suggestion was made.  "Like, OMG, I might have to answer their questions rather than randomly dropping in every once in a while with some inane and vapid boosterism, I mean, customer support."

If Hashfast fails to ship by Dec 31st and refunds USD, or ships broken crap, or fails to deliver MPP+ boards in time for them to have a realistic shot at ROI, I too will join a class action and am prepared to make some funds available for it.

Although if there are enough of us, I would expect the case to be accepted on contingency (i.e. little or no up-front costs but lawyers take a % of the settlement).  There is quite a bit of indication that Hashfast never had any serious intent to deliver in October, and that it was all a lie to boost sales at high prices.  I also think that there are aspects of the MPP that may form part of a suit.  Importantly, there are several of us who paid in USD who have expressed upset with the situation here, and I would hope that any action is constructed such that it encompasses our situation as well as that of those that paid in BTC.

The guy from that disreputable enterprise known as BFL doesn't understand a couple of important things.  First, the MPP was what enabled Hashfast to sell out it's first and probably second batches. If it wasn't for the MPP, they would laboring in obscurity, with prices far below those of the fall, cash dwindling, fewer orders, and people saying they'd rather rely on proven hardware (e.g. KNC) than HF's troubled program. Second, I think the miners that have ordered from Hashfast have learned lessons from the BFL saga and will not be as passive as BFL's victims.

Why don't you start a thread specifically for questions and answers.  People post questions, you post answers. If you don't know the answer or are not authorized to divulge it, then you can reply and say "I don't know" or "I can't say".  This would create clarity about the situation and your position.

"Hashfast Community Liaison - Question and Answer Thread"

Questions and answers only.

Other discussion can stay here.

Just a guess, but if it does, that very well might relate to the fact that they initially priced shipping out of the Bay Area, since rates were published and charged before the Canadian assembly house came into the picture.  

I'm pretty sure that overnighting a Baby Jet from Montreal to Houston or Los Angeles is a lot more expensive than from San Jose to the same places.

But if that's why it "costs more than we paid", that's Hashfast's problem, not ours.

I agree in general, Hashfast still has the ability to make things more or less right by shipping working product immediately and by  'doubling down' on the MPP (simply 4x hashpower in a few months is not enough).

But the problem is their credibility in whatever pledge they could make. If they said tomorrow, "Merry Christmas, we're doubling the MPP and shipping those boards by January 31st",  how many customers would accept that claim?  After the October shipping claims that were clearly fraudulent?  Folks like Cedivad won't.  I'm not sure I'd believe it.  This is the problem.  If they want to make good, how do they do so credibly?

I asked this question weeks ago and Hashfast clearly responded that the installation requirements for the upgrade kit were a screwdriver and beer.  The latter optional.  

Page back for a post from them that literally includes pictures of a screwdriver and a beer can.  

So, yes, they are explicitly on record that drunk chimp would be able to install the upgrade kit.

Ah, here it is. I see it was Hashfast)CL:

I don't want to bring Hashfast down either, but I think suing them is a legitimate option.  HF raised money from investors (not from sales) for the startup costs, IIRC to the tune of around USD 600-700k (check me on that).  Now surely they have dipped significantly into the sales money, but they have also sold four batches of machines.  I'm pretty sure Hashfast does have some significant money and that it does have some other potentially valuable assets (IP).

IMHO, the obvious path of least resistance for Hashfast, and the option that costs least, is to massively up the MPP - deliver more hashpower faster to MPP customers.  Yes, that would piss some non-MPP customers off, probably, but on balance, considering the lawsuit risks and reputation destruction potential of failure to deliver (which is obviously already beginning to harm them) ...

The two problems I see with, say, HF doubling the MPP hashpower and committing to an earlier miniboard delivery date are:

1) Lack of demonstration that the equipment reliably works, and;

2) Hashfast's general credibility is so bad at this point that a lot of people with orders may choose to simply not believe them and sue anyway.

Harrison, Hashfast is not legally free to impose new terms on old sales.  The terms that apply to any given sale are those terms stated at the time of sale.  Some people seem to have great difficulty understanding this.

Now, yes, Hashfast might be silly enough to try to argue that it can apply ex post facto terms, and they might convince some dullard customers that it's okay, but such an argument won't last 5 seconds in a legal proceeding.

But the real problem for them (and us) is the October delivery fraud.