Everybody just light up a bowl, pop a cork, pull a tab, whatever is legal is your jurisdiction... we will hear from Hashfast soon enough... although hopefully tomorrow (Tuesday, there at the practical end of the world's timezones in California).  

While I was not impressed by the stupid advertising raffle, I still think that Hashfast are fundamentally decent folks and will do right, that they intend to do what it takes to ensure that MPP customers, especially in Batch 1, make it through this delay intact.  HF can't roll back the difficulty or instantly conjure up extra boards, but they have other options already discussed here, and probably some that haven't occurred to us.  So let's see what they do.  I'm optimistic that it will work.

All true, but also worth noting that the MPP was expressly calculated in BTC from day 1, without regard to form of payment. You could pay in BTC or by bank wire in USD.  Either way, the MPP was the exact same ROI pledge. In the case of USD payments, it was BTC per the BTC/USD MtGox exchange rate on the day of purchase,*** in other words, the exact same. This was an important consideration for USD customers and is a core feature of the Program.  Two forms of payment, but only 1 MPP.


*** They later switched to another exchange's rate, I forget which one.

Thank you, Ninjarobot, for an adult post.  Pleased to hear of their earnest concern and apparent intent to address the issues arising with the MPP for 1st batch customers due to the shipping delays.  In general, things sound pretty positive, although I hope they don't spend too much money on office bling before they get product shipping and happy customers.

Definitely not anonymous but I wonder how much the machine costs and what kind commission bite the maker wants...

Context, fellas, context.  Some of you seem to have a hard time appreciating it.  

Or perhaps you so regret your own missteps that it's palliative for you to have some fun with (your out of context interpretation) of others thoughts.  

Though I'm happy to provide a public service by helping you come to terms with your own regrets over missed opportunities and hair trigger sells, why don't we move back on topic?

Funny.  All the commentators on my observation about the BTC/USD rate vis-a-vis the MPP make assumptions about my intent that they're not in a position to make.  Truth is that my intent is to take a long term stake in BTC, and I haven't expressed any desire to refund my Batch 1 purchase either.  So chew on that.... but this is all OT anyway.  

Inaba, I'm sure your customers appreciate the undivided attention you have dedicated to your order backlog.... while hanging out in the Hashfast thread.... why don't you go decal some coffee mugs or something?

I think the issue is that Taco didn't quite correctly restate what HF said. Not a big deal since the actual quote from HF is okay, as is the description of the MPP on HF's website.

On your point btc_usr, I didn't have BTC to pay for my order,  so I did not pay in BTC.  Even if I had the BTC, I doubt I would have used them to pay. I had USD and I paid in USD by bank wire.  No conversion took place.

Except that for the purposes of the MPP, my USD are counted as BTC at the MtGox exchange rate offered by HF to customers paying in BTC on that day. In other words, the same as everybody else paying that day.

So, in effect, buying the HF hardware let me make an investment of USD linked to the value of BTC without the rigamarole and fees associated with first buying BTC then transferring them to HF.  (And I know some won't like me saying this, but I like the potential protections (especially to a US customer) of paying in USD versus BTC.)

But, like everybody who paid in BTC, I'm screwed if the MPP fails.

That sounds correct.  Rather, that better be correct, or else I'm going out to the garage and grab my pitchfork to join Cedivad!

Although it was a bad call in retrospect, I considered buying BTC instead of making a Batch 1 order, back at then end of August.  I would have made quite a bit of money by now.

It was specifically that element of the MPP - that they base calculations on BTC - that led me to commit my USD to Hashfast, that made investing in the hardware seemingly attractive compared to just buying coin.  The MPP would, in effect, account for a rise in BTC value by counting my investment in BTC from the day of purchase.

Anyway, that's a biggie for me.  But I think we just had a miscommunication here, my understanding from the beginning is the MPP is BTC based.

Yes, they have said that a few times.

If I were Hashfast right now I would not be engaging individual customers, especially excitable ones, in extended discussions either. It's pointless and probably a waste of time, although I agree that a couple of the communications from them that I've seen posted here were curt and somewhat defensive.  What this suggests to me is that they are feeling pressure and responsibility, and that's good.  They have a lot of our money and need to deliver.

If I was Hashfast I would, however, be diligently monitoring discussions like this one and seriously thinking about comments and suggestions submitted in a civil fashion, with a view to announcing a plan to address the situation of batch one customers as soon as the chips fall into place (i.e. when there are more known knowns). 

With that, I'm done with this topic until further news from the company itself!  See ya then.

Well, if you're M008 (or is that Icedrill? then you would be M004?), I sympathize with your situation, and clearly they are going to have to make a fair arrangement with you or risk their reputation.  I'd say you should "speak softly and carry a big stick" rather than speaking loudly and threatening judgements that may or may not happen.

I'd also say that the MPP was extended to everyone on the same terms (as far as I know), and I don't see how they can really offer you compensation that's substantially different than what they offer other customers. So whatever solution they come up with needs to work for the rest of us as well.

I suppose that if your objective is to simply refund and buy something else, rather than ensuring that the company make good on its pledge not to leave MPP customers out in the cold, perhaps it makes sense to start fighting now, but I really don't think it's a battle that you are going to win. Or if you do, you get your same amount of money back a few years from now, less legal fees.  Probably a Pyrrhic victory.

Although it's way too early to be thinking about this seriously (IMHO), I would anticipate that any litigation in the case of Hashfast would center not on order cancellation and machine refunds (unless they fail until January) but on the terms ("implied warranties"??) of the MPP.  The objective of such litigation would be to force Hashfast to produce additional hardware to ensure reasonable ROI and/or reasonable cash compensation to MPP purchasers because Hashfast did not live up to its pledge of profitable, healthy, etc. customers. (if that actually is the case at the end of the day).


PS:  If you want them to deny you a refund, what you need to to do is to write them a refund request - a printed letter on paper - and send that overnight to their physical address, with a return receipt requested.   Say your order number, how much you paid, exactly how and where you want your refund sent, etc.  Don't engage in any trash talk in the letter. Keep it simple and businesslike.  Your judge may one day read it. Keep a copy of the letter (obviously). When they sign for the letter, you will get back a copy of their signature and date, etc...  Keep this. Then you have your proof that you sent the request and that they have received it.  Even if they don't reply, the lack of a reply will be taken legally as a denial of your request.  You can do this now, without paying a lawyer.

I have nothing to do with the company, never have, and never will.  I'm a former history major that works on agriculture and health policy.

I think that you and a few other people, some of them even more cynical than you, that were bruised by the experience with BFL (I was too) are way prematurely applying the same mentality and tactics to Hashfast as you would "Inaba".  Hashfast has announced a delay that they say will be short.  This is really unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected.  And it's nothing like what BFL is guilty of.  The question for Hashfast is what they will do to cover the butts of 1st batch customers (and I am one!) that have been exposed as a result of the delay, and I think it's reasonable to give them some time to formulate a response.

I'd say "get your head out of the weeds" (meaning, "don't become too focused on particular details") and look at the situation from a broader perspective.  

When it comes to "puppets", what I am concerned about here are not so much the "Hashfast shills" but the people that are trying to encourage antagonism between Hashfast and its customers.  Those people, at this early point, could well be accused of being "KNC agents" or "BFL puppets" because they are arguably poisoning the waters.  I don't think it's in anybody's interest to encourage the kind of hatred with Hashfast that characterizes everything related to BFL.... unless you are lobbying for another ASIC maker!

Anyway, if Hashfast fails to deliver on its pledge, I've already said I would consider joining a lawsuit.  But it's just way to early to think of that.  Confrontation is the last option, not the first.

I think folks should take a chill from trying to elaborate or overinterpret the Miner Protection Protection Program on Hashfast's behalf, or tell Hashfast that it must pursue some very particular possibility shakily extrapolated from a few Hashfast statements.

What's important for me is that the first batch customers are made whole, in the sense of Hashfast's pledge:


So, as far as I'm concerned, let them sweat the details of how and when to release extra hashing power under the MPP.  The overarching commitment, as I interpret it, is that Hashfast will provide hashing power to ensure that MPP customers "succeed", and are "healthy, prosperous", within the shortish timeframe suggested by the MPP.  To me, that means positive ROI in the first half of 2014, preferably the first quarter. 

If you are losing money, you are clearly not successful, nor healthy and definitely not prosperous.

The guys in the company are going to have to decide how to make good on the MPP on the basis of details only they know - productions schedules, sunk costs, implications of schedule changes, anticipated availability of components, etc.  Without that info, who of us can really say what the best specific course is?

Anyway, I still believe the company intends to do what it takes to fulfill its pledge.  If it doesn't, then you'll see me over there on that other thread about legal action... but we're still a long way off from that becoming a reality.  Give 'em a chance.  Let them take a little time to reinterpret the MPP and announce a sound plan.

And let's keep it civil.  HF people are not our enemy.  We have strong common interests.

Of course the latter.  An $1800 insurance policy on a $2760 investment?

----

Anyway, with it totally obvious that everybody on the MPP is going to be getting several boards under the MPP  - even the guys that ordered one BJ and no upgrade - I think HashFast should just face up to the music and eat the BJ hardware cost, at least that hardware bought to fill purchases under the MPP.

Keep it simple and put your clients in a position to easily and quickly get the MPP boards hashing.  Send everything on the MPP program out in Sierra cases from day 1. So fully equipped Sierra cases initially go out with 1, 2, or 3 ASICs, depending on the orders of the specific customer, with open slots for MPP boards or purchased upgrades.

Hashfast wants to sell miniboards, after all.

That's without prejudice to the other discussions about when the MPP should kick in...

Better yet, an MBA.  Since MBAs are so skilled and produce so much for society.

Cough.

I don't think pulling wire is that likely, at least probably not with recent construction in a place with code enforcement. Standard here would be a 120v 20 amp circuit on 12 gauge romex... I'm not an electrical engineer, but shouldn't that be sufficient for nearly 2000 watts constant load?  I've done a little bit of homeowner construction to code, and they make you run a separate circuit for just about damn near everything these days, except lights...  I guess the concern would be if you've got an old 15 amp circuit on skinny little wire or hooked up to your air conditioner....

Well, I think it's a wee bit early to be talking lawsuits... give 'em a few days to see what "enhancements" to the MPP they can come up with for Batch 1 customers as well as what credible indications they can make that this delay is, in fact, a quite short one.

If I was going to cancel my order, however, the first thing I'd do would be to overnight them an actual paper letter, certified and return receipt requested, stating your order number, amount paid, and that by that letter you are cancelling your order. I would then cite the specific section of federal regulation that people keep quoting about this matter (and I hope you are right about it, legally), and indicate exactly to whom and exactly where they should send the refund. And that you expect it to be made immediately.

Something to give you credibility in a lawsuit... then again, you might regret making such a move if the delay turns out to be minimal. Hashfast might just give you your money back (possibly in USD based on BTC conversion on the date of purchase) and use your chips to make somebody else happy.

Meh.  Seems to be kink.com.  So what?  They hired a guy that worked for bondage video producer.  Questionable career choice, but not really germane to the question at hand.   I don't think he was on the "team" until a few weeks ago, IIRC.

I shouldn't have used the word "case". What I meant, and should have explained, was a Sierra ready to be fully populated with the forthcoming MPP miniboards (i.e. with boards, fans, power supply, etc...).  In other words, ready to be hashing the same day that the MPP miniboards arrive with no additional customer expense.

I know some people think that's trivial, but if the profitability of these machines is marginal at best, saving that hassle and a few hundred bucks per box in extra hardware costs is helpful.

Again, I'm not saying this is *the* solution, it's a step in the right direction...

With it now completely clear that the MPP will kick in, in full force, I wanna second (third?, fourth?, fifth?) the proposal that HF ship the 1st batch BabyJets in Sierra cases.  HF announcing its intent to do so would be a good way for HF to quickly show its commitment to the MPP.  

That alone probably won't be sufficient to make the MPP provide ROI (which is HF's commitment), but having room to deal with MPP GN modules without a lot of hassle or hardware purchases would be a useful thing to provide Batch 1 customers.  It would also slightly help the emerging problem of Batch 1 customers being at a disadvantage to Batch 2.

Hell, speaking personally, since I ordered a BJ plus the upgrade kit, if the full 4 modules from the MPP come (and it seems they will), I'll need two Sierra cases. Either that or just ship me the MPP modules already installed in 2 BJ's.  I know the big miners don't want BJ cases, but it would work for me.

Anyway, slow down flamers... I'm not saying the case switch solves the emerging problems for Batch 1, I'm just saying it would be a step in the right direction.