Thanks for the update with the verification status! Now I get to figure out how to  F5 my physical mailbox

You have now added verified to a few messages on the first post, but not marked failed messages. I have not received a PM saying there is a problem, but it seems like you've been saying that most of the messages you received from this thread failed verification. So I guess if we are not marked verified we must assume that verification has failed. I sent the message days ago, it would have been nice to have feedback before it affected shipping. I don't know why you've singled out batch 3 for poor communication. You're doing a great job with batch 4, which is sort of annoying. You really need to work on your communication with this thread. Batches 1,2 and 4 seem to provide much clearer feedback and the vague accusations blaming us for not knowing how to sign a message is grating.

I have checked and rechecked the message in my outbox and I am able to verify it so it's not clear whether I have signed incorrectly, whether you are unable to verify messages, or whether you have not gotten around to checking mine yet. So I guess I just have to assume that you are unable to verify it.

I have resent a shorter message containing only the mailing address, hopefully you will have less trouble verifying that.

Yes, I am slightly annoyed because you seem to have spent your time starting Batch 4 early, and giving them feedback about verifying their addresses rather than communicating with us about any problems. Now you've got our devices in hand and this has caused delays in shipping.

Yes, I don't think bitinstant does much, but I'm pretty sure MoneyGram demanded my drivers license number and verified it the first time I used it. And it seems like they've stored that info linked it to my phone number so that I don't have to repeat the process.

The cashier doesn't check ID. I think zipzap and or bitinstant are able to rely on MoneyGram to link identities/transactions and comply with the Know Your Customer regulations. i.e. if the Feds show up asking about a bitinstant transaction they can tell the Feds which zipzap transaction it was, the Feds can then ask zipzap and zipzap can give them the MoneyGram info and finally they ask MoneyGram and MoneyGram has the KYC document verification (in my case drivers license number was probably cross checked with registration databases during the MoneyGram interview).

I can't remember whether SS# was involved but the first time you use it you register a phone number and street address at least when you're at the red MoneyGram phone. In subsequent transactions, I've only been asked to provide my phone number.

That's good to know! I'll just go to Walmart instead Saves having to stop off at the ATM on the way to CVS.

Nope. Just the Dwolla/MtGox connection. I used Dwolla to fund CampBX earlier this week and I used bitinstant today to fund MtGox to get the last few coins I needed for the group buy.

You can also use bitinstant directly to buy BTC, but if you have a MtGox account already, I'd recommend that instead because you have better control over the purchase price which can be a little wonky via bitinstant sometimes.

I noticed that CampBX will also do MoneyGram today, but haven't tried it yet to see if it goes via zipzap or not. That zipzap fee is annoying.

ITT fired janitor knows best.

Just don't specify CanaryInTheMine's address. 

chanson ; 1 ; 2.2218; 1FX2zhQboJr96sj5HatDdtLn7CF8LxJzbD

https://blockchain.info/tx/88bcdddb998d507163feb4fdb20813ce0688aef865bdcf867c24bf49a137e44c

Crap, hope I'm not too late.

Nobody deals directly with doctors except in some retarded fringe fantasy that is entirely divorced from reality. Put another way, a single taxpayer-limited layer of beurocrats would be vastly superior to the chose-your-own-adventure of multiple unlimited layers of for-profit free-market kleptocrats we currently have.

Privacy is a tool to restrict government power but it's important particularly because government power is easily abused by populists. Transparency enables populists. That might be good, but occasionally it is horrific. Big money/power will find a way to stay in the shadows.

With enough tin foil, you could think bitcoin itself was created by the CIA so that they could avoid Congressional oversight.

Let's cut this to the bone now.

• If you wanted your device in September, and did not receive it or were unsatisfied with BFL, you could have refunded then and put it back into BTC (and made out well).
• If you wanted your device in October, and did not receive it or were unsatisfied with BFL, you could have refunded then and put it back into BTC (and made out well).
• If you wanted your device in November, and did not receive it or were unsatisfied with BFL, you could have refunded then and put it back into BTC (and made out well).
• If you wanted your device in December, and did not receive it or were unsatisfied with BFL, you could have refunded then and put it back into BTC (and made out well).
• If you wanted your device in January, and did not receive it or were unsatisfied with BFL, you could have refunded then and put it back into BTC (and made out well).

If you held for this long, and don't have a plan or the ability to evaluate your options, you're just foolish. If you are looking at a miner as an investment and you do not have your own understanding of when BTC or BFL is a better investment, you are not doing it right and you'd be better off playing the bingo with the seniors.

What do you mean by this? I assume applying labels indicates that you are assigning traits to my responses. I'm new to bitcointalk, but the usual traits for sockpuppets and trolls is to not engage in substantive discussion. Perhaps you're frustrated that I deliberately ignore your cursing and name calling and baiting. Or perhaps your theory of mind assigns sees motivations reflected in others.

I think you misparsed my sentence ("or" ~= "and"). If you feel ASICminer or Avalon products are better investments, take your refund and buy there. That way BFL can get you again. I've been analyzing and reanalyzing this for a while to decide whether it's time to jump the BFL ship. I don't think the numbers work. None of them have anything you can actually buy right now (except for those joke USB eruptors money pits) and Avalon has successfully used batch #1 to sucker people into buying the increasingly delayed batchs #2, #3 and inferior chips they don't have in hand.

What would you tell people that sold their BTC for USD last year and have missed out?

I would tell them exactly the same thing I'd tell people that sold their BTC for USD last year and have now also "lost" 3000 dollars. At that time, they valued their BTC at that rate or they would have held onto it.

For all anyone knows, BTC could crash again and they will have made USD selling their orders.


Give them back the entire amount of USD they received?

Well, this is the reality: so far BFL easily refunds your order and lets anyone easily walk away whole at any time (in the USD sense, I understand some people are disappointed because they wish they could be whole in the BTC sense given the currency appreciation).

So, everyone can freely choose to either walk away or stay in line for delivery of the GH/s they ordered at the price they paid.

So...

They didn't ship in November. If shipping last November is important to you, walk away.

The didn't hit 1 J/GH. If you care about the 1 J/GH, walk away.

If you think Josh is being an asshole, and Josh not being an asshole is important to you, walk away.

Personally, it looks to me that they are close to shipping and all the other ASIC stuff out there is lower performance, even less existent, or extremely more expensive.

I think it's completely incorrect to allege deception/lies.

Those were their design projections, and it didn't work out that way. They've always been clear that they are developing a product, not that they have product in hand. Everyone could and should have easily known that they were making a purchase at the research and development stage before ordering. Especially anyone ordering more than a few hundred dollars worth could and should have known exactly what they were getting into. And BFL seems to provide refunds with very little friction, so nobody should be here that doesn't want to be.

I appreciate how open BFL is about their progress and setbacks. You seem to be venting. I think you should step back and decide whether you want your BFL product or not. If you do, chill out. If you don't, refund and walk away.

Yes, I saw that later and edited my comment. I also checked my orders and the date paid is the date listed there, so I agree absolutely no smoking gun against cloudhashing.

That screenshot is what cloudhashing.com offered as proof that cloudhashing is not a scam. I'm inclined to take Josh's word over that of a suspected scammer.

Edit: Josh is also correct that the order dates get adjusted to be the date payment was received, so cloudhashing's screenshot could be fine.

I just checked and my order does indeed list date paid rather than date ordered. My sister and I went in together on an order. She decided to back out a few weeks ago, so I had to request a refund. But then I regretted it and decided to go it alone and I sent a second email requesting that the refund-request be ignored. A few days later I got two emails, the first saying they canceled my order and the second saying they hadn't seen the anti-cancel request before it was too late; but offering me to reorder and they would correct the date to get me back to my original place in the shipping queue. I just checked and the invoice of the reorder does now list my original pay date rather than the reorder date.

BFL customer support are very courteous and helpful and turn around has been less than a week for all my emails. I think the people that rant and rave don't actually interact with them.

Josh's only fault is he opts for direct communication rather than lacquering everything in non-committal deceptive weasel words.

If you want a single example of how it's done in legitimate companies, you've should look to Motorola Mobility and their eternal Sisyphean quest to provide customers with their "promised" bootloader unlocks. You will learn that the way it's done "legitimately" is to say something very extremely deceptive phrased awkwardly so that moron blogger microphones (and trade press) paraphrase out the weasel words so that what hits the masses are lies that were never actually uttered.

Re: Telsa, give me a break. Musk is one of the biggest self-inflated sheisters around. Jumping into the spotlight to spouting off uninformed bullshit about Boeing's batteries; fighting extremely deceptive battles with NYT reviewers; etc. And, yes indeed, Tesla's cars, while nevertheless impressive, have not meet their own widely-hyped pre-order performance claims.

Gah! This thread makes me so angry. It's the same old story. Why the f* can't we get a social safety net to just work? It's the same old cycle, ridiculous burdensome bullshit that exploits taxpayers because we have to prevent the greedy rich antisocial bastards from exploiting the taxpayers. So much rage. So. Much.