 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Waldo, be honest now. Is their any chance we will get anything back?
If there is nothing left how are we ever gonna get anything back?
I can answer that. It's pretty much a "no". They filed for bankruptcy and apparently owe $40M. What assets do they really have? Likely nothing. Maybe they might sell all assets for $1M, but I would venture to guess that is being generous. So, if the assets were $1M and they owe $40M, then you're be lucky to be getting 1/40 of the dollars you paid. So, if you paid $1000, you might get $25. And, since the dollars you paid via Waldo are lower than the dollars paid to Hashfast, you're looking at something even less. You might as well forget about it. |
|
|
|
In general a Risk Management Service would be a hosted co-signing service. It would be up to a specific implementation how your device is notified.
I chose WebFist, because most users don't have a domain they control.
Do you happen to know if there is any solid implementation of the Fist Bump server except Brad Fitzpatrick's go implementation?
One month later... Sorry about the really slow reply. Somehow, I missed this entirely. But, I do have an excuse: two weeks traveling and then, as always, slammed at work for another couple of weeks. Anyway, I'm not aware of other implementations. I'd suggest pinging Brad to find out. You're right that few users have domains they control. However, for WebFinger to be useful, it doesn't necessarily have to be one they control. For example, if Coinbase offered a WF server, I could tell people to send money to me at paulej@coinbase.com. The address would not necessarily have to be my personal email address, after all. It's nice that it might be, but what I personally think is more important is that one can offer an address that is easier to deal with than a big string of base53 characters. |
|
|
|
sounds a bit promising. I hope they do survive and produce the ASICs, in that case I'd expect us to get hardware with updated hashrates that would be suitable to the time of shipment. Did we ask for a refund or would we still be able to choose another deal, if they do survive? If they were really honest, they would have done one of a few things (and perhaps more than one thing): - Responded to their customers
- Offered to provide hardware that would have matched the hashing rate / network rate at the time they were supposed to deliver the hardware
- Provided a no-fuss refund (I understand they were likely broke, but they could still communicate with customers rather than go radio silent)
- When providing refunds, return the original BTC like they said they would do (somebody said it's actually illegal to use a customer's pre-order funds to pay for development... some FTC regulation mentioned. I don't know about that, but there are definitely rules covering refunds for products not shipped on time and they've broken those rules. The rules even say the customer must be refunded without requiring the customer to ask!)
|
|
|
|
Its a crappy unit. Miner 3 seems to be cursed. I know why. It's because that is the miner in which I invested. I guess I should have warned the others. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
In retrospect, all I can say is "I made a really bad mistake on this one." But, I still squarely place the blame on HF.
Why the rush to get a fractional refund? To get back 1/5 of what we paid seems horrible. Is that what I'm reading? That's really unfortunate. My contribution was 12BTC, purchased at $1280. So, if the refund is 1/5 price paid and assuming 1/5 the BTC, then that's 2.4 BTC. At today's price, that is $1080, losing $200. Better than nothing, but unfortunate. If it's 1/5 the USD I paid, that's worse, at $331.
Either way, this it's a bad deal. HF promised a full refund in BTC. At the very least, I would expect a refund of $1280 (minus the management fee). Honestly, though, I'd rather sit it out. I guess I could continue to lose money, but I'd just as soon see them die than to steal from me in this way.
But, if we go with a refund, I too would prefer BTC.
|
|
|
|
This can work. I noted you specify how to use WebFist as the way to publish the JRD. However, you don't need to do that unless your email provider does not support WebFinger. I run my own WebFinger server and could just publish the JRD directly myself. In fact, I do. You can query my WebFinger server like this: $ curl https://packetizer.com/.well-known/webfinger?resource=paulej@packetizer.comYou'll see I have a couple of bitcoin-related entries in mine already (and I show one more below): {
"rel" : "http://bitcoin.org/rel/address",
"href" : "bitcoin:17XoqvUCrf12H7Vc7c7uDxib8FDMXFx2p6"
},
{
"rel" : "http://bitcoin.org/rel/payments",
"href" : "https://secure.packetizer.com/bitcoin_address/?account=paulej",
"type" : "text/plain"
},
{
"rel" : "http://bitcoin.org/rel/payments",
"href" : "bitcoin:17XoqvUCrf12H7Vc7c7uDxib8FDMXFx2p6?request=https%3A%2F%2Fblockchain.info%2Fr%3Fid%3Dpaulej"
}
One of those is just a Bitcoin address. The other two are Bitcoin payments URIs, though I suspect the latter is more along the lines of what you're expecting to use. The URIs I use as the link relation types ("rel") are made up, since there is not standard specified for those. However, I think those are reasonable ones to use and follow standard conventions. I'm not terribly familiar with BIP70. I can understand how you might publish a URI to which a payment is made, but how would you receive notifications of payment requests? Does the wallet poll some location from time-to-time to see if there are requests? |
|
|
|
itodd, There is a message to consider in what I wrote. I'm not sabotaging a constructive conversation in the least. Rather, I was trying to offer things to consider as a part of the dialog. My points were: - Getting legal protection in court for Bitcoin is not surprising given
- The IRS classification of bitcoin as property
- FinCEN's treatment of bitcoin as a financial instrument
- 218 BTC is not a sizable sum for hashfast, so they can manage that
- They likely could not manage the thousands of bitcoins that might be requested by all customers (forcing bankruptcy)
- HashFast did themselves a disservice by ignoring customers and not working out a repayment plan
|
|
|
|
|
This is not surprising. Considering the IRS now treats bitcoin as property (in the same class as gold, basically) and FinCEN recognizes it as money, it is an asset that will get legal protection.
218 bitcoins for them is likely not a big deal. But, I bet the total number from all customer for whom they did not deliver products as promised is way higher.
Personally, I just don't understand why they are behaving the way they are. Even if they were unable to deliver as promised and even if they could not repay the money owed immediately, anyone with integrity should communicate and discuss a repayment plan. I suspect most customers would accept a payment plan vs. going to court and arguing and potentially forcing the company into bankruptcy. Plus, being responsive and also shipping products earns a bit of goodwill. If they really have products to sale, they'll sell them that way. As it is, I would not buy anything from that company.
|
|
|
|
|
That goxcoin idea sounds like gold certificates in a belly up company. I don't think that's any better than where we are now.
|
|
|
|
I've been all over the new HashFast threads- attempting to get a reply from HashFast_CL- instead, he/she just deletes my posts and ignores my PMs. That's pretty much that latest of what's going on.
They won't even talk, but ask for arbitration to settle disagreements? These guys appear to be pathetic. Of course, harsher words have been bestowed upon them. All I can figure is that they're in a heap of trouble. There is no way they can probably repay all of the BTC customers are demanding. They don't have the ability to meet order demand, either. They need higher capacity manufacturing and not enough money. I'd say it sounds like bankruptcy is coming, but BFL is still around... BTW, I'm taking pre-orders for private ocean-front property in Arizona. :-) |
|
|
|
If you guys want to point me in the direction of other groups going the same route with the same lawyer, I could shoot them some Qs and see if they are having any progress.
rypedx is taking legal action... One person to consult. |
|
|
|
|
Have you talked with any others who have already started the legal process? I wonder if we can learn anything.
The lawyer might consume money, but as was explained by someone else here, this is actually customary.
The fact HF will not even reply is very bad. I believe they are excusing themselves from any kind of responsibility. Worse, while I think they demand arbitration, it might take a court case to get them there. Those folks are starting to sound like BFL.
|
|
|
|
I really can't see how some of you want to make it work without/against waldo. There is no reason to blame him for anything that happened. In addition, if I count it right people committed 0.8 BTC so no point to discuss it further.
I guess we are slowly but surely moving towards USD refunds. Unless anybody has some other idea? So who is willing to spend it's own time to make this thing work? I am not talking some bullshit talk but actual action.
Well, the fact is that there is nothing we can do without waldohoover. He is the person who made the purchase, so nobody else can take legal action against HashFast. Last message from Waldohoover was that he would seek a USD refund. I'm not sure if he did do that or if he is still willing to consider a legal direction. |
|
|
|
|
I'm willing to offer 200 mBTC.
|
|
|
|
As for the rest, the original purchase agreement was ambiguous on how refunds would be calculated, but there were representations by HashFast that BTC payments would receive an equal amount of BTC in refund. And that's generally the way refunds are understood. This group buy paid HashFast entirely in BTC.
Given they were paid for in BTC, then that definitely suggests a BTC refund. That also aligns with what others were saying. Perhaps with the Mt Gox issues today, BTC might be cheap to come by this week. |
|
|
|
My guess is that some of you guys are outstanding fellows and would step up to the plate for the group, as I would, if condition A were met. Problem is the guy is so goddamn shady nowadays with communication that I cant even fathom sending him more btc. Its insane.
I suspect there would be enough who would provide funds. I don't think waldohoover is being shady. I suspect he's rather tired of people throwing rocks at him, threatening to sue him, etc. Whatever the case, we do have to have active dialog to move forward. But, he may have already moved forward with asking for the USD refund. I think he last indicated he would do that. |
|
|
|
Well, for the lawyer to work, we need to figure out:
1) How do we raise the $1000. This will not happen split between all investors. I for 1 will not put more money down this money pit.
2) Then if the $1000 is split between a smaller group, how / if we win, does this $1000 get paid back. Is it purely just the $1000, and then the rest is split. Or does the people who put up the $1000 expect more payment back as it is another investment by them. For that you will need a majority agreement, but nothing has been put down as to what sort of majority is expect, 51%, 75%?
Again, at the end of the day I just want back what I can get and want it now, not in x years time.
Phil
I would argue that anyone who is willing to chip in 0.2 BTC to pay for the lawyer should get that 0.2 BTC back immediately at the end of the case. Then whatever is left would be divided among all shareholders per share. Legal proceedings are never fast. I mentioned that before. There's really no reason to demand speed, because you cannot hurry the legal system. I would really like to know, however, whether a BTC refund was promised by HashFast or not. I read on this site that it was, but I also saw various purchase agreements that said nothing about a BTC refund. However, the purchase agreements did offer a refund if the miners were not delivered on time. So, were the miners purchased in dollars or BTC? If the miners were purchased in dollars, then those sales agreements speaking of refund would likely be interpreted by a court as US dollar refunds. A third option we have (in addition to a legal argument for BTC or a USD refund) is a request by HashFast to provide the group with the comparable hashing power that would have been given if the products shipped on time. I don't know what the difficulty was then vs. now, but if the company matched the difficulty with more hardware, I'd say it would be a win for everyone. |
|
|
|
...that said, it does seem like it would be difficult to get the group to put up the $1k deposit. I'd still like to see us do it, though, because it's the only way we're going to get anything even approaching a reasonable refund (and I want to shove a lawsuit so far up Hash Fast's ass they taste it for weeks).
People might actually do it if they knew their costs. Thus far, we only know $1K, which seems substantial in light of already losing money. However, given the number of shares across all miners and, I suspect the per-share cost is minimal. What would that be? |
|
|
|
The bottom line is that no one here would like to be in Waldo's shoes on this. The 400 coins are in HF's pocket and that's the end of it. I'm willing to listen to arguments as to whether or not holding out for a full BTC recovery is possible but the way HF has been, I'm not seeing it. I doubt some new law will legally affect what has already transpired but perhaps I'm wrong. This lawyer thing seemed decent as a 'stick it' to HF sort of thing coupled with getting back more coinage but the letter about a blank check for expenses sucked all the air out of the room. The only option left is getting the dismal usd return if HF will give us the time of day here. I'm currently out 7.5 coins and would love to recoup as much as possible but I'm also being realistic and getting irate isn't going to solve anything at this stage. W/o a lawyer and the related baggage, how are we supposed to force HF's hand on anything? They're in the driver's seat and there's not much we can do about it besides maybe contacting some big BTC names and see if they can lean on HF to do something. That's all I got.
Yeah, a new law most definitely will not change anything. One cannot introduce a new law and use that ex post facto. That said, one does not have to worry about that if the original agreement was to refund BTC. I don't know what the sales literature said; I only know the claims made on this site that HashFast guaranteed that people will not lose their BTC. It would be interesting to know how things are progressing for others who took legal action against HashFast. |
|
|
|
I'm definately NOT up for a USD refund. What is wrong with you people?
As a matter of fact, if you are "IN" for a USD refund, why dont you send me $50 bucks now and I'll send you $5 bucks next week.
Did you know california just passed a law making BTC legal currency?
Did you know hashfast is in california?
Did you know waldo is supposedly in california?
Since you all enjoy losing money so much, just send me any money you dont mind losing.
Waldo, you arent getting anywhere with this. Why do you like fucking us all so much? It doesnt seem to bother you one bit. Oh thats right your the only one making any sort of money here.
Pretty sad thread this is. Bunch of people bending over taking it up the butt. Willingly. Ugh.
Oh, come now. I don't hardly think you're being fair to everyone. Bottom line is this: - HashFast failed to deliver then tried to force a USD refund, so everyone is unhappy
- A decision was made to look for an attorney, so waldohoover talked to one others are using (as I understand)
- The attorney wants money upfront, with apparently no limit on how much he can request upfront
- So, some people asked for USD refunds... and not everyone is happy with that
- You can please some of the people some of the time...
I'd suggest waiting. I'd continue to demand BTC refunds from HashFast (since they said openly that they would guarantee people would not lose their BTC). At such time as HashFast absolutely refuses to provide a BTC refund, going so far as to say "we will not provide a BTC refund", then decide what to do. Perhaps more will be known about the other lawsuits. |
|
|
|
|
