Bar, there is a saying that perfectly fits the situation: "If you want to do something, you’ll find a way. If you don’t, you’ll find an excuse." They found an excuse, I found a way  Did they give you alternatives? Again your way might not have been viable. You are close enough to them the RMA shouldn't take but a day or two max just send it in! No alternatives were offered. Liam was very adamant over the phone, not even giving a reason why a BTC deposit is not a viable option. He just said: "we are not going to change our RMA procedures" in a way that made it clear they don't want to work with their customers. Sending it back is a risk I am not willing to take: it can take 3 days, it can take a week. The lost revenue while my machine is offline will never get recouped back from the increased hashing performance. At least not at this stage. |
|
|
|
So KNC would not accept even Bitcoins as a security in order to send working boards first as to minimize downtime for customers.
From where I am standing it looks like they are trying hard to work against their customers by refusing to come up with a RMA solution that works for both sides.
I can not think of a single reason why they would not accept BTC as a security in order to send working boards first, apart from trying to discourage people from using the RMA service.
This has to do with people trying to "Game" the system. Maybe they don't want to be liable with your BTC or want to deal with customers saying they never got the BTC back (Lieing to game the system) RMA has always been, send it back and they send you a new one. This isn't a new concept. While I understand the frustration of potentially losing money while it is RMA'd that is the nature of the beast and their hands are tied. Bar, there is a saying that perfectly fits the situation: "If you want to do something, you’ll find a way. If you don’t, you’ll find an excuse." They found an excuse, I found a way |
|
|
|
|
So KNC would not accept even Bitcoins as a security in order to send working boards first as to minimize downtime for customers.
From where I am standing it looks like they are trying hard to work against their customers by refusing to come up with a RMA solution that works for both sides.
I can not think of a single reason why they would not accept BTC as a security in order to send working boards first, apart from trying to discourage people from using the RMA service.
|
|
|
|
He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad? Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst? I will try one more time to explain. If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange. I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false: If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference Oh I didn't realize the debate was over which adjective is more appropriate. Again the decision to invest in a miner was bad, the decision to invest in BTC via mining was good but worse than investing directly. Now we agree  Just one note: these statements can be made with 100% certainty now, but not when people made the decisions |
|
|
|
He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Why would a 100% ROI would be considered bad? Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst? I will try one more time to explain. If you had $7000 to invest in BTC, you have 2 choices. You can invest directly at the current exchange rate or you can invest in a Jupiter for a predicted amount of BTC over a period of time. Those are your two choices. Both have the risk of the exchange rate changing. Investing in a miner has an added risk of delays/difficulty increases. You should only choose to invest in the miner if you believe it will mine more BTC than you can purchase. If your miner made less BTC than you could have purchased directly then you made the wrong choice. The fact that you still made a fiat profit is great but it was not because you decided to invest in the miner but because you decided to invest in BTC via the miner but for a worse rate than you could have gotten on an exchange. I understand completely what you are saying and I'm just pointing out that this statement is false: If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. It's not bad, it's just worse. There is a difference |
|
|
|
He's only saying that the investment in the miner was bad. Not the investment in BTC.
Why would you consider a 100% ROI to be bad? Do you also not understand the grammatical difference between bad, worse and worst? |
|
|
|
Your investment in BTC would be good but your investment in the miner would be bad since you could have invested in MORE BTC for the same price directly with more flexibility to sell.
So hypothetically you consider a 7000USD investment, that gets you 100% ROI a bad one? |
|
|
|
It's not bad, but the profit has come from the rising BTC/$ rate not from the Jupiter. Any hardware needs to be valued in the number of BTC it cost and the number it gives you back.
Exactly And this is why Rampion is wrong, because he is saying it is bad. No, it is not bad, just worse than buying BTC and keeping them. |
|
|
|
Of course its about the $ value
How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?
If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100
You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50
Would you say you have made a ROI?
Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss. Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad? It depends on how many coins you spent on it, or on how many coins you could have bought with 7000USD when you paid for the unit. Most of batch 1 customers bought their units in June, when BTC/USD was at $100, that means aprox. 70 coins per unit. If a batch 1 Jupiter mines less than 70 coins in its lifetime then yes, batch 1 customers would have been better by buying BTC. All the above is painfully obvious, and still some deny the obvious. Do you understand the difference between bad, worse and worst? Is English your native language? |
|
|
|
Of course its about the $ value
How would you feel about ROI on miner hardware if the reverse was true?
If you had paid 100 BTC for a miner when BTC was worth $100
You mined 101 BTC but BTC value dropped to $50
Would you say you have made a ROI?
Yes! More BTC than you started with is a profit. Less BTC than you started with is a loss. Exactly. It's incredible how is so difficult for some people to understand such simple concepts: You are buying a machine that mines bitcoins. If it mines less bitcoins than you have paid for it (or that you could have bought when you paid for the machine), then you did bad. So I paid 7000USD for a Jupiter and if by any miracle I mine and sell BTC for 14000USD then I did bad? |
|
|
|
they proved to our community they could deliver a product on time: A World Premier.
Consider yourself lucky then for not enduring a delay, because some of us did. 2 weeks can make a huge difference: you are making profit already and I'm at less than 10% of ROI. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone tried to call KNC today?
I've been trying for the past 3 hours with over 15 attempts and nobody is answering.
|
|
|
|
Made 25 Btc now with 2 Jupiters. Not even halfway there because 2 units came around 16th and 19th and one is still lost in transport. Great to know that some have already made back their money! Please keep it to yourself.
Btw: Best Share 1,487,394,728 Found my first block today =)
Solo? |
|
|
|
What could be better than getting up @ 3am to see how much you made during the night?
I love this shizzle!
Gox @ 227, XBT @ 212....
Just reached 50% return, day 19
But according to Croppo, they aren't worth a dime.....
I better just give up then....
Hahahahahaha
Can I hate you now? :p Don't hate, just envy that he is 50% towards ROI. I wish I can say the same thing  |
|
|
|
to what temp?
I got it up to 90c before I put the fan back on. I didn't wanna risk letting get any higher. I know the limit is supposed to be about 105c, but why risk it right? Anyway, I noticed that when it got to around 90, all the VRMs showed an output of 0A. So I let it cool down, and when it got to about 51c, the two normally working VRMs kicked back in. I let it slowly climb back up by blocking airflow. I noticed when it gets to 75.5c, a third VRM kicks in. Its not until it hits 80c, that the 4th VRM kicks in. As soon as the 4th VRM kick in, the temps get to 83c, and then every VRM drops back down to 0A. So from this experiment; I've gotta figure out somehow to keep one of the boards under 55c (thats where it hashes the best, and the other one between 80c - 82c, which is freaking difficult. Just a bit of airflow makes more then 2 degrees of difference. I would suggest waiting for the next firmware, which should hopefully fix all problems. I mean we shouldn't make our own fixes, right? |
|
|
|
Man i really don't understand you people. All you do is just whine and bitch here on the forums. I wonder what's the actual percentage of KnC customers that are whining because i see the same 10-15 people around out of the ~3000 orders(?). Why should you receive compensation for your own laziness/lack of knowledge of using the RMA system. There is absolutely 0 reason for you to complain like an incapacitated child. If the product you bought is sub-par with what they advertise then grow up and RMA it and in a matter of days you will have your perfect product. In the long term you are losing more than the shipping and the time lost while waiting for the RMA.
Because using the RMA system makes no sense from a financial point of view. You will make more BTC mining with 420GH/s now, than send the miner back in order to mine presumably with 550GH/s in 5-7 days. I was given an RMA number on 31st and the next day Bitcoinorama was kind enough to give me the 0.98.1 Beta, which healed one of my Jupiters completely, which just shows that there is lack of communication internally between the different departments. While suggest a RMA, when there is a chance for a software fix? Currently I am 99% convinced that my other Jupiter will be healed too, which makes me wonder why people decide to send boards back. That makes no sense. Hi Cyper,
I don't know if you have tried this, but after reading the KNC forums, I found a reference to the #kncminer channel on freenode IRC, where some of the orsoc developers tend to hang around. I had a serious problem with my miner that was not resolved by talking to support on the phone, but Henrik (hno) from Orsoc was on the IRC channel and promptly got the problem sorted! My miner was hosted, but perhaps he, or somebody else, mighy be able to fix your problem or at least help troubleshoot. Worth a try, and much more effective than posting here. I don't think anyone from KNC or Orsoc is reading this thread(?)
I hang there quite often and has spoken with hno just yesterday, but he hasn't suggested anything that can fix my 2nd Jupiter. |
|
|
|
Let's see what firmware they come up with Monday, because so far I'm far from impressed or satisfied with the product, not to mention the delay for which I still expect compensation.
Don't want to be nagging daily, but it seems that's the only way with KNC.
Jupiter 1 is hashing with 0.98.1(beta) at stable 564GH/s with 0.9% HW erros - no complaints there. The only thing that can be improved is the power consumption, but no big deal for now.
Jupiter 2 is still averaging 420GH/s with 0.98. The beta firmware did not help and it even reduced the hash speed to around 390-400GH/s. I expect improvements there.
i wouldnt expect any kind of compensation for delays....kind of expected with this type of hardware. we are the guinea pigs! and im ok with that. I think there is a direct correlation between the number of days that one's order is delayed past the 15th October and the expectation for a compensation. The longer the delay, the higher the expectation. I am not surprised that people who endured a delay of less than 5 days are less inclined to argue over any compensation. But I waited 14 days and while some people are half way to their ROI, I am nowhere near that, which makes me far from happy and satisfied as a KNCminer customer. |
|
|
|
|
Aggrophobia, are you mining with 2 Jupiters?
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see what firmware they come up with Monday, because so far I'm far from impressed or satisfied with the product, not to mention the delay for which I still expect compensation.
Don't want to be nagging daily, but it seems that's the only way with KNC.
Jupiter 1 is hashing with 0.98.1(beta) at stable 564GH/s with 0.9% HW erros - no complaints there. The only thing that can be improved is the power consumption, but no big deal for now.
Jupiter 2 is still averaging 420GH/s with 0.98. The beta firmware did not help and it even reduced the hash speed to around 390-400GH/s. I expect improvements there.
|
|
|
|
Awesome, just awesome...
Some people got their miners 2 weeks early, some other people got them 2 weeks late.
Professionalism at its best.
dude, I'm watching your posts for last couple of months and you have really bad luck. underperforming Jupiter, 2 weeks delay and now mighty Orama just admit, that KNC accidentally shipped 15 units earlier.) honestly, I admire you manners and patience.. KNC unprofessionalism is really endless.. And I always give credit when it's due. I so wish KNC achieved what they advertised they will , so I can just shower them with praise and kind words. It would have been so much easier. I even start to feel uncomfortable of all this moaning from my side. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
