I'm inclined to agree.

Don't see how you can blame BFL for this any more than you can blame Avalon for the stupid eBay listings for their units.

They're honouring the advertised hashrate on old orders, even if they have to make up the difference by shipping multiple 30 GH units or throwing in some jalapenos.  It's new orders which will be buying a 50 GH unit (presumably because it's not cost effective for them to resolve the problem and produce a 60 GH unit).

Originally, they said that people could choose to wait for MK II if they didn't want to accept the existing units.  Not sure if that offer is still on the table given that the MK II units won't have the same hashrate as MK I.

If they're legally separate entities, then one generally has no responsibility for the financial obligations of another in the absence of improper dealings between them.

Free market in action.

It's also extremely likely that any actual investors in BFL have ensured that they are secured creditors and would have priority claims over those of customers who pre-ordered.

Do those regulations ever actually get enforced or are they one of those requirements which everyone ignores without consequence?

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1037-discount-voucher-policy.html

People are also being offered the option of taking the sub-spec units or waiting until there's a revised unit with the problems solved but you need to contact BFL if you want to wait for the revision.

People who ordered in the first month get a discount voucher to "compensate" them for the delay in delivery.  They need to use it within 60 days.  If I recall correctly, it's for 25% of their original order value up to some maximum I can't remember (so if you bought a mini-rig you can't use the discount to get a free single).  I think people who ordered in the second month get a 10% discount.

And the demand for their product/service.  And their competence.

I have no problem with the OP saying "help me out if you like the idea".  It's the "help me out even if you don't like the idea" and the "I'm doing the community a favour" statements which are raising people's hackles.

"Fund my app" is the 21st century's "fund my videogame" equivalent.  The vast majority of apps will never make a return on the initial investment.  Both development and funding should probably be done more as a labour of love than anything else.

They probably figure that they can sell their sub-spec units for more than they paid for them and pass the risk on to someone else.

Likewise.  If you can't afford to refund all user balances in full, how can you afford to redevelop the system and relaunch the service?  Perhaps you should consider offering users you can't repay equity in one of your other services.

The reddit thread about this is full of people happy about the fact that their BFL units are now "worth twice as much".  

And no-one cares if BFL is shady as hell as long as there's a chance that BFL might eventually ship a product which makes them easy money.


You should probably have filed a report with one of the various computer crime units.  These types of crimes don't really seem to fall within the operations of local law enforcement.  We already know that various federal agencies are aware of Bitcoin (and many of them are responsible for prosecuting various computer based crimes), so they're probably the best bet for reporting stuff.

They put that on the website a month or so back and a couple of people reported asking for a refund and being told by Jody that refunds were now on a case by case basis as all sales were final (a stark contrast to her "we understand if you can't stay the distance and will be happy to give you a refund" statement of last year).

If I had to guess, I'd say that they wanted to minimise the possibility of people cancelling their orders and requesting refunds once they were committed to the bulk order for 63,000 chips (and however many corresponding boards).

It seems really unlikely that their "all sales are final" statement would have any legal validity under the circumstances, especially as "two months or more" is so vague.  If the customer agreed to a specific delivery date which was months in the future, it might be different, but essentially they're trying to say we'll deliver "whenever".

Of course the legality or otherwise of them taking pre-orders, saying "all sales are final", delivering a product which is materially different than what was promised, etc is pretty irrelevant unless people choose to take action under whatever consumer protection laws are available to them - something people are likely to do only if BFL starts refusing refunds en masse.

Personally, I find the lack of communication from BFL staff other than Josh appalling.  When a project goes this wrong, there should be public statements and reassurances from the GM, the CEO, etc - it shouldn't all be left to the COO who is already trying to answer 1001 questions regarding matters where he doesn't even have direct knowledge.  In my opinion, BFL has let Josh down badly and it's about time that some of their other executive staff stepped up and took some responsibility here.  Half the time I get the impression that Josh has been kept in the dark and fed bullshit just as much as customers.

I noticed Josh saying that they'll ship whatever it takes to achieve hashrate and I also noticed him saying that people would have the option of waiting for gen 2 if they didn't want sub-spec units, but I haven't noticed anyone from BFL saying that people can have refunds if neither of those options are acceptable.  Did I just miss it or has it not been said?

My maths brain's not working this morning.  The mini-rig was going to contain 192 boards of 8 chips.  Given that the chips/boards aren't performing as anticipated, how many of the sub-spec chips/boards will it take to make up 1500 GH and what will the power draw be?  Is the total wattage going to create issues for people (I'm on 240 v with 20 amp circuits but I know that the standard maximum load per circuit is different for those on lower voltages)?

And you'll only have 60 days to use it. You'll basically be paying double what you expected for a lower powered unit - what a wonderful "compensation" plan.  They could at least let those with discount vouchers purchase at the old price (100% of $1299 is better than 75% of $2500).

Hmmm.  Josh's most recent comments in shoutbox imply that the problem could be with the chips.

Zhou was still in Melbourne last time I checked but he never had anything to do with Britcoin or Intersango.  He sold Bitcoinica long before the Intersango guys came onboard and was technically only an employee of Bitcoinica after that time.

Last time I checked, Amir was the only director of Intersango and was still located in London.

You'd likely have to get a judgement against Intersango before you could look to remedies such as asset freezing/seizure and you're not going to get a judgement based solely on your word.  One US court has already ruled that it has no personal jurisdiction over Intersango regarding funds owed by Bitcoinica, so I wouldn't hold out your hopes in that direction.


Perhaps you could put your question to one of the online legal forums and they could clarify for you whether there's any possible criminal action here or whether it's purely a civil matter and whether it's one which could be pursued in the US.

I find this one quite useful, although the answers are often extremely blunt and abrasive.

http://forum.freeadvice.com/

They deal with US law only so you'd need to make your question about possible remedies available to you in the US.