|
I dunno if locking the thread will help— after all 99.9% of the thread is people pointing out that this is a scam, but I'm glad to go ahead and do so.
|
|
|
|
Rats, if only it weren't for you meddling kids! |
|
|
|
Just as the Activemining trainwreck reflects poorly on the board and community as a whole, Gmaxwell's intentionally trashed HashFast thread serves as a beacon, to warn those interested in facts and logic away to seek greener pastures.
What the hell are you talking about? I removed pages of people complaining about _other_ companies to another thread precisely to allow hashfast customers to continue to discuss their predicament (though— not with much progress sadly, considering the lack of information from hashfast itself). It's not a promotion, it's removal of offtopic stuff, and I even received PM thanks for it from some of the other hashfast customers who have silently been trying to follow the thread... The subject matter was still generally on-topic for the subforum and clearly touched on some things that some people felt the need to vent about. in any way achive Gmaxwell's goal of punishing HashFast the company? I can assure you that were I intending to punish the HashFast company it would be via mechanisms more effective then helping other hashfast customers continue to discuss how screwed they are without the thread being made unreadable by agent provocateurs or whatever the hell trolling rubbish goes on around here. Wherever did you get these ideas in any case? "But he doesn't care, as he is too emotionally invested in harming HashFast in any way possible" —  do you also think that obama personally listens in on you when you shower? |
|
|
|
|
ASICminer blades implement getwork incorrectly, no shock it was banned.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone save a copy? Might have something interesting in the background. e.g. dates displayed on machine readouts.
|
|
|
|
|
It's done under the guise of protecting the people they've already sold to.
An uncharitable take is that since KNC themselves owns and operates a huge amount of hashpower what it's really protecting is themselves. Why sell miners when you can mine yourself? Well if people will pay yesterday's price for hardware when tomorrows difficulty is going to be much higher…
|
|
|
|
|
Do not ask altcoin questions, they will be moved to the altcoin subforum.
|
|
|
|
Do I understand it correctly that if those Dice services waited for even 1 confirmation, this attack wouldn't happen?
No, with 29% hashpower a double spending attack would have a 60% success rate on confirmed transactions. The fact that the success rate isn't 100% would just mean that they'd need their profits when successful to be at least 17 BTC in order to make up for the cost of a lost block (less if they don't have to pay their miners for orphans). |
|
|
|
|
FWIW, the question in the topic is confused. The question shouldn't be "600 GH/s how long is it good for?" it should be "0.6J/GH how long is it good for?" since absolute hashrate has nothing at all to do with hour long you can usefully mine with it, but power consumption sure does. Any answer on the lifetime will ultimately be mostly conjecture, but at least its a sensible question once framed in terms of power.
|
|
|
|
giving more hash power is less expensive than giving people refunds... especially if they have to refund in btc (which i can't see how they can afford to do, even if they promised it)
hash power only costs them 'cost price', whereas its value to customers is at 'retail price'... thus giving extra hash power is a valuable way for them to compensate people that costs less than its worth.
Absolutely. The problem is that "give more hashpower" alone doesn't eliminate the potential lawsuits. "Your choice of refund or more hashpower" probably would, but I would worry that there is enough distrust now that people wouldn't take the hashpower even if it was the better deal in terms of the numbers. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with "give more hashpower" is that its expensive and doesn't assure the company that the risk of lawsuits will go away.
A better path would be to offer the a choice of a full 1:1 refund in BTC as if the sale had never been made or enough additional hashpower that most customers would choose the latter.
The problem is that the 1:1 refund at this point would be a hard deal to match and I suspect that many people now believe the original October claims were flat out dishonest, making promises of further hash-power later unattractive.
This is what I was referring to earlier on the thread about there being potentially no clean solution. A half measure doesn't remove hashfast's legal exposure, and a full measure may not be within their ability to afford.
|
|
|
|
|
We permit self-moderated threads for a reason— too.
|
|
|
|
or precisely on dec 31'st and claim that this constitutes meeting their deadline
I believe their contract always specified EXWORKS Hashfast's facility... So the customer's eat the shipment volatility. This is— unlike many of the other things alleged to be 'standard'— actually fairly standard. |
|
|
|
|
Gah. People there were pulling a prank. Relax. The power supplies are still 20,000 watts.
|
|
|
|
Could someone create a table of all batches that were sold, the price they were sold at and what kind of guarantees were offered? I think this would helpful in making the different stakeholders aware of the different deals that people here got themselves into.
The terms didn't just change on batch boundaries, unfortunately. The story is somewhat complicated as a result and there were conflicting commitments of differing character at differing times in different locations. |
|
|
|
It is very much the case that many people trust BFL. ... note that I did not specify what these many people trust BFL to do.  Infamous, famous. Whats a couple letters between friends? |
|
|
|
|
To be fair— it seems that everything they've said in the past has since turned around and bit them.
If only they'd never made any claims at all— none of this stuff about miners or shipping, just a big button that said "send your money here, and maybe something happens"— I suspect a lot fewer people would be irritated right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Standard warranty?
Uh. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe most states have implied warranties of fitness and merchantability which are difficulty to wave, and cannot be waved for goods sold as new with a duration of something like 30 days.
The rationale goes— "You sold me a Bitcoin miner, but instead gave me a device that works for 10 days and quit. That wasn't a Bitcoin miner, it's a defective Bitcoin miner", and no amount of hand-waving about contract terms changes that fact that what you purported to sell was a miner rather than a defective miner. When you sell someone a "bitcoin miner", for the purpose of mining bitcoin and you know what it's to be used for and they know whats its to be used for and you know that they know that you know what its to be used for— well then it darn well ought to actually be useful for that purpose and one that fails in 10 days isn't by any reasonable standard.
Of course, someone can write anything they like into a contract... but if the contract holds up or if their business can survive the loss of goodwill that would come from screwing people with a defective product— are both other matters.
I'd be pretty surprised if anyone considered ten days "standard"... and, in fact, it seems to be so unusual that googling for the phrase "ten day warranty" brings up this thread (amid a sea of other pages talking about 90 day standard warranties, with 10 days to return RMAed goods).
|
|
|
|
Neat, it appears the capacitor tipping has been fixed!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
