|
581
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Klondike - 16 chip ASIC Open Source Board - Preliminary
|
on: July 04, 2013, 05:46:15 PM
|
Todays Update.
I spent all day testing and trying to find what is causing HW errors.
I also did some comparison/companion testing with the Erupter that a very generous turtle83 sent me. The Klondike and Erupter ran fine together, and the cgminer menu items seem to be fine now too, after updating to 3.3.1.
I spent a lot of time analysing share.logs and running the data through my kslog util to generate work data for ktest. What I found out was that almost all the HW errors are non-repeatable. If I take accepted data and feed it back in manually I get the same nonce out. When I feed similar data that resulted in error nonces I usually get NO nonce out at all. This seems to indicate some problem with midstate/precalc/data not getting into the ASIC correctly rather than errors caused by bad result capture. Now I checked my code several times trying to find anywhere the data gets corrupted before pushing to the ASIC and can't see it.
As the day progressed I found the error rate dropping off as well. After a run of 1.5 hours along with the Erupter I found that the Klondike had a bout a 3% error rate, and the Erupter about 1.5%. But I'd been getting a lot of Rejected shares and I wondered if that was due to the slow speed and delays in submitted shares or what. So this evening I switched from 50btc (getwork) to BTCGuild (stratum) and saw that Rejects dropped a lot, and so far HW Errors are completely gone to 0 (knock on wood).
So it could even be that some problem with generating work with GetWork is sending bad data to the Klondike (?? weird), as with stratum (local block generation) I have not been getting HW errors. I'm trying to understand how that can be. Never see USB disconnects at all now. And if HW errors drop right off with stratum, then I'll probably add another ASIC and start checking the chaining next. Right, now running at 150 MHz clock, no heat sink and it's a bit hottish, but touchable with fingers for about 5 seconds.
Or maybe error rates actually get lower as the clock rate rises because going from 128 to 150 seems to have lowered the HW errors. Hmmm. Figure that out.
Plan for tomorrow: solder down more chips.
Awesome sauce. The getwork vs stratum is puzzling. |
|
|
|
|
582
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)
|
on: July 04, 2013, 05:40:05 PM
|
Lulz the number of chips delivered is not relevant at all.
You could say the number of GH/s delivered or you could say the number of devices delivered, but the number of chips is completely irrelevant.
Ok i think this is the lowest you can go i think. You sir have earned your idiot title from me. Please get out your head out of your ass and stop lying yourself. How can the number of chips delivered be not relevant at all? Are you really implying that for the end customer the hash-meters per second is a lot more important than the actual availability of the chips? Wow! Just wow! Fool - the Avalon requires 240 chips to make ~70GH/s The BFL SC Single requires 16 chips to make ~60GH/s Try putting your brain in gear before typing. Fool! The thread is about chips not devices! Try taking Josh's privates out of your mouth so you can see what you type! Seems like time for the thread to wander off to the off-topic section like the last few have, its always the same time and time again. Out of curiosity, I went and had a look at k9's post history, and I was actually surprised to see basically nothing but BFL hate and praise for avalon. Yet the BFL hate crew go around calling everyone BFL shills?
Why am I surprised that a BFL supporter did a cursory inspection of the facts and then misrepresented them here? Here are 4 threads that I dumped a few posts each into in the last 4 days. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247168.msg2632649#msg2632649https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114291.msg2632481#msg2632481https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=247489.msg2623786#msg2623786https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245772.msg2622547#msg2622547Yes there has been a lot of BFL flying around lately, but if BFL fanbois could do math I wouldn't have to spend 50 posts explaining how bitcoin profit calculators work to mouth breathers like minternj. If they could do math I imagine there would be a lot less waste in general. When Avalon lies to their customers for 6 months, I will jump on their case too. As far as chips go, there are a bunch of factors to consider:
Production scalability - how fast you can make heaps of them
Yep. ASICMiner and Avalon nailed this one. That is why small, cheap, and fast to market can beat complicated, expensive, and slow to market. That doesn't show in a glossy brochure, but some light is shed on it with a metric like this one. Production cost - per unit or thousand units usually
Power expenditure - how much each chip eats in watts at full capability
Hashing output - how many GH/s the chip can put out
These belong to the bang for the buck category, and all things being equal they drive the buying decisions for mining hardware. However, when balanced against availability, bang for the buck does not always win. Especially when there is risk the company will not deliver late or at all. The average customer doesn't really care about much else... Not how many engines are on a chip, nor the die size or even how many nm were used on the fabrication process. They just want to see how much power goes in and how many hashes come out, and how easy and costly it is to get them.
Moving along now...
True. But this thread is probably not aimed at the average customer, so if you are average you can safely ignore it. The process size matters because that is a driver of power efficiency and cost. The number of engines matters because that increases the size, cost and complexity of the chip and makes it more difficult to cool because of increased power density. One is not "better" than the other, they are simply different. |
|
|
|
|
583
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Invalid nonce - HW Error
|
on: July 04, 2013, 07:34:48 AM
|
Would anyone happen to know why 2 out of 4 BFL Jalapenos are throwing out >50% HW errors at difficulty 8 shares? One pair are throwing <0.1% HW errors, while the other pair are throwing at least >50% each. I haven't been able to find definitive proof that each HW error = 1 share lost. Could anyone clarify this?
Could you post screenshots? 50% sounds kinda crazy, are you sure you read the output correctly? |
|
|
|
|
584
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)
|
on: July 04, 2013, 07:28:39 AM
|
...
Clearly this a metric in progress and there is probably more that can be done to define it so it can shed light on different designs. Seeking out more information and being academically honest about it is what we need. It be nice for once to come to thread like this one and have people drop the puffery for BFL or AVALON chips etc and take an honest appraisal of the tech.
...
Clearly the progress is zero. Again, compare the functionality, design and performance of the two chips in questions and you see the metric is pointless. The Avalon is a smaller and cheaper chip that got to market earlier and earned its user base a ton of cash and earned Avalon a $5 Million chip order. BFL is a larger and more complicated chip with some yield and design issues. Yes, they put 16 engines on the chip instead of 1 but couldn't manage to run them at a higher clock rate than Avalon even though they are at 65nm instead of 110nm. The only reason BFL uses a bit less power is because they are at 65nm instead of 110nm, not because of some awesome design. The metric is basically ... "If we could actually get the manufacturers to produce chips at the nm size they should have and also parallelised them how many time they should have then here is a magic multiplier (that will get the answer wrong) to say how they compare"
Again the number is pointless and meaningless.
Again, the number shows your hated Avalon compares with BFL so you would never concede there is anything to it. We even have someone ranting about the number of devices delivered so far ... well ... there have been WAY more BFL devices delivered than AVALON devices ... but that is again off topic.
We are talking about chips. Avalon has delivered far more chips than BFL, and Avalon has way more chips on order still. That is not off topic, that is directly on topic. You actually refuse to speak of the design and just say over and over "BFL BETTAR!". Then again, you don't know anything specific about either chip so from your point of view BFL is better because you got it free of charge before anyone else. You are still earning your Jalapeno today in this thread. Nothing has really changed since my first comments about the metric and the results even prove that.
Yep, you are still a bigot. Blinded by nerd rage and in love with Josh. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg1511889#msg1511889Hey Josh,
you got any update on where your guys are at?
I'm certainly not someone to promote your guys unsubstantiated claims coz
of your crap history (even with the ASIC), and you know full well I've never been
a fan of BFL, but the Avalon people are really pissing me off, Tom's gone down
the drain, and I would certainly be happy to be able to run a BFL ASIC on an rpi
and show it leaving Avalon's shit in the dust.
You post that point 1) saying I suck off Josh and then complain when I ignore it and also complain when I don't ignore it.
Wrong again. Is English your fifth language? Your reading comprehension is terrible. And yes feel free to read all that thread
Read this thread too! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg1511889#msg1511889Kano hates Avalon. Kano gets free BFL device. Kano shills for BFL on these forums. No great mystery there. |
|
|
|
|
585
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)
|
on: July 04, 2013, 07:01:03 AM
|
Glad you finally concede point 1.
...
No, just that you are a nobody here and there is no point responding to false off topic comments from a nobody. Now you resort to Ad Hominem. You do this because you have already been wrecked on this subject and hope I don't bring it up again. Kano vs Bitsyncom https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=142083.0Now everyone can read why you hate Avalon so much and why you go out of your way to post negative things about them. My comments are on topic because you used this thread to attack Avalon (yet again) and the OP's metric just because it shows Avalon in a posititve light. My comments are not false and anyone can read your tantrums about Avalon. |
|
|
|
|
586
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)
|
on: July 04, 2013, 06:24:44 AM
|
Glad you finally concede point 1. 2) You shouldn't be praising BFL's chip because they barely got it working at all. They missed their clock rate AND power targets AND delivery date by a country mile. But they gave you a free unit before their customers go them so we are inflicted with your sycophancy.
And yes even though they missed their specs they are still better specs than anything else available ... lol You keep using that word "available", I do not think it means what you think it means. I can understand your confusion, you got your unit free and before everyone else so you wouldn't understand how for 90% of BFL's order book their chip is not "available". 3) BFL maybe more efficient in hashes "per chip" but that is a useless metric. BFL uses 3.5 times the die size in a process that gives 4 times the density for 14 times as much logic. .275 x 14 = 3.850. That is why Avalon compares favorably to BFL using the reported specs.
Correct, this drivel makes the crappy Avalon chip compare favourably. Exactly why it is drivel. I guess you are afraid the metric shows if Avalon ported their design to 65nm it would probably beat out BFL. But Avalon doesn't need to do that, BFL is already beaten because they cannot deliver product. Avalon has to worry about KNC and Bitfury if they are going to continue in the ASIC mining marketplace. Or maybe they made enough money already and won't bother with a second generation product. |
|
|
|
|
587
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL ASIC seized by EU , european & german Customs
|
on: July 04, 2013, 06:14:07 AM
|
If you think you are going to have customs problems, ask for the miner to be shipped without a power supply and source an approved one locally yourself. This is what Avalon have been doing, and probably why KNCminer are going to ship without a power supply.
The alternative is the possibility of not having your ASIC miner.
I can imagine the answer from BFL: All sales or final, we can't do it. They have already been shipping Singles without power supplies for some people, this is obviously a potential problem, and it would be nice if you helped people with useful suggestions or refrain from posting.It would be nice if you followed your own advice instead of being a BFL spokespuppet all the time. How about next time you see Josh in the office you mention to him he might want to follow the law instead of dumping mistakes like this in his customers lap. |
|
|
|
|
588
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: BFL 50gh/s miner
|
on: July 04, 2013, 04:55:21 AM
|
Again, you are going to have to make the argument to the FTC that 2 months or more isn't a specific time frame and therefore falls within the 30day refund policy.
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-ruleThe Rule requires that when you advertise merchandise, you must have a reasonable basis for stating or implying that you can ship within a certain time. If you make no shipment statement, you must have a reasonable basis for believing that you can ship within 30 days. Within a certain time is the operative phrase. "2 months to infinity" is about as uncertain as you can be when talking about a delivery date, so no, BFL is stating that they can ship within a certain time. If, after taking the customer’s order, you learn that you cannot ship within the time you stated or within 30 days, you must seek the customer’s consent to the delayed shipment. If you cannot obtain the customer’s consent to the delay -- either because it is not a situation in which you are permitted to treat the customer’s silence as consent and the customer has not expressly consented to the delay, or because the customer has expressly refused to consent -- you must, without being asked, promptly refund all the money the customer paid you for the unshipped merchandise.BFL failed this requirement. The evidence you need to demonstrate the reasonableness of your shipment representations varies with circumstances. The following, however, is important:
Anticipated demand. Is the demand for each advertised item reasonably anticipated?
Supply. For each advertised item, is there a sufficient inventory on hand or adequate sources of supply to meet the anticipated demand for the product?
Fulfillment system. For all promotions in the relevant sales seasons, can the fulfillment system handle the cumulative anticipated demand for all products?
Recordkeeping. Are adequate records kept of the key events (see section headed "Why You Should Keep Records" for a list of key events) in each individual transaction to ensure that items can be shipped within the applicable time, as established by the Rule?
Remember: Whether you make a shipment representation or rely on the 30-day rule, your advertising should be unambiguous about when you will ship.BFL failed this requirement. |
|
|
|
|
589
|
Other / Off-topic / Re: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)
|
on: July 04, 2013, 04:36:34 AM
|
So ... I come back again and find ... The Avalon chip that hashes slower than the chip used in the old BFL FPGA, and uses at least 1.5 times the power of a BFL SC (per MH/s) and requires ~15 times the number of chips compared to a BFL SC (per MH/s) and a box somewhere between 5 and 10 times of a BFL SC Single ... rates: Avalon 275 MH/s Custom 110nm, 55nm 16.13mm2 2,836.52
BFL SC 4.0GH/s Custom 65nm, 32.5nm 56.25mm2 2,441.11
The Avalon above the BFL SC  Not only that, but the BFL SC is pure custom ASIC, whereas the Avalon seems more and more each day to be a quick a dirty hack implementation. Again these numbers are irrelevant to anyone but someone who wants to name a new number and pretend it's important. Too bad you can't read, otherwise you would understand the metric being used. Or can't you see the screen with your head up Josh's...  All I see if you trying to make an excuse to pick some useless number to say the crappy tiny ASIC chips are good when in fact they suck. The metric is useless except it seems to apparently show the low tech chips pretending to look better than the low tech crap they are. I didn't say the metric was good. I said you were an idiot for not understanding what the metric was. The OP explained in great detail what the metric was. As for the rest of your drivel: 1) You really hate Avalon because they wouldn't give you a freebie. Nobody should trust a word out of your mouth (when Josh's privates are not in it) about Avalon. 2) You shouldn't be praising BFL's chip because they barely got it working at all. They missed their clock rate AND power targets AND delivery date by a country mile. But they gave you a free unit before their customers go them so we are inflicted with your sycophancy. 3) BFL maybe more efficient in hashes "per chip" but that is a useless metric. BFL uses 3.5 times the die size in a process that gives 4 times the density for 14 times as much logic. .275 x 14 = 3.850. That is why Avalon compares favorably to BFL using the reported specs. |
|
|
|
|
590
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL ASIC seized by EU , european & german Customs
|
on: July 04, 2013, 03:47:42 AM
|
Not trying to thread jack here but US-delivered power brick, am I missing the UL stamp, is it somewhere else on the brick or device?
I just checked my power bricks and they all have ULs, FCCs and CEs (of the EU varietal). For US delivered jalapeno's? Sorry no, they are just the power bricks I have lying around. Laptops, printers, n such |
|
|
|
|
591
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL ASIC seized by EU , european & german Customs
|
on: July 04, 2013, 03:36:29 AM
|
There are lot jala box and labes pictures you can check if they got CE
The only CE logo that came with my US-delivered Jalapeno is the one that appears on the power supply.  Not trying to thread jack here but US-delivered power brick, am I missing the UL stamp, is it somewhere else on the brick or device? I just checked my power bricks and they all have ULs, FCCs and CEs (of the EU varietal). |
|
|
|
|
592
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)
|
on: July 04, 2013, 03:13:25 AM
|
Maybe it's just me, but when you tell me Bitfury has a 2800 score and KNC a score of 90, that really seems odd. Especially considering KNC's gigahash/watt is better than Bitfury's or BFL's. It really makes me question the relevance of this metric to me. Are you saying KNC, or someone, if they had access to KNC's design could replace it with a design that's 30 times more efficient? Are we saying KNC's design is basically one giant fuckup? Doesn't seem to make sense or accord with known facts.
Area is taken into account in this metric. In theory, a gigantic die size could cram tonnes of hash power on a single "chip" and thus compare favorably with Avalon when measured per chip. When you measure using area, it normalizes for this and gives you a "better idea" about efficiency. I am not sure I am a fan yet, but it is an interesting way to measure ASICs  I'm gonna assume that we simply just don't have enough technical details to make a determination and that's why KNC still hasn't been added to the OP list.
That makes more sense. |
|
|
|
|
593
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Do you still want to buy a BTC miner? Better read this first.
|
on: July 04, 2013, 03:07:14 AM
|
I always wonder how many of the "don't mine, you'll never see a full return on your investment" are running as many mining rigs as they can.  Running them maybe. But not buying more. Ordering a machine to be delivered after 3 months of monumental growth in the hash rate (BFL order log, Avalon order log, Klondike order log, KNC orders, and Bitfury orders) seems a bit hazardous. Calculating a "return" off of current difficulty with zero growth rate is just bad math. assuming that you are looking for a return, not all of us are. I am not criticizing people for buying miners. I am criticizing people for saying that some miners ordered now will generate a positive return (when the math says otherwise) If you just want to support the Bitcoin network, that's fine. |
|
|
|
|
594
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: BFL Ban Directs Back Here
|
on: July 04, 2013, 12:38:23 AM
|
If you payed through PayPal, they'll (most probably) issue a refund. Got mine last week (refund, that is, not a miner)
I paid via paypal and they still refused to refund my money. They're an outright scam. Picture or it didn't happen.  Here ya go. Proof enough? And yes, they are a scam. There are two forwards of me just showing two associates that I emailed them the request (just blacked them out, among my own name, etc.). int03h is the BFL desperation sockpuppet. They only pull him out when things get really bad. Like when the entire BFL customer base realizes that they are entitled to refunds from BFL whenever they want them. http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule |
|
|
|
|
595
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Do you still want to buy a BTC miner? Better read this first.
|
on: July 04, 2013, 12:32:07 AM
|
I always wonder how many of the "don't mine, you'll never see a full return on your investment" are running as many mining rigs as they can. Running them maybe. But not buying more. Ordering a machine to be delivered after 3 months of monumental growth in the hash rate (BFL order log, Avalon order log, Klondike order log, KNC orders, and Bitfury orders) seems a bit hazardous. Calculating a "return" off of current difficulty with zero growth rate is just bad math. |
|
|
|
|
596
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL now getting customer financing?
|
on: July 03, 2013, 11:55:56 PM
|
How about mentioning the bit where it takes GlobalFoundries 2months to make a wafer from the time BFL have gathered enough orders from people to fund a wafer run?
Nice try. If they have already done one wafer run, the lead time is cut dramatically because they don't have to make the layer masks from scratch. They just do the etching and slicing, which is far easier to schedule. So no, it shouldn't take 100 days of lead time to get more chips. Or is this just another smear thread the mods don't care about?
Censorship is always the go to card for scam artists. BFL spokespuppets like Erk reach for it constantly. I am surprised BFL hasn't threatened people with SLAPPs, or have they?  |
|
|
|
|
597
|
Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: BFL 50gh/s miner
|
on: July 03, 2013, 11:11:10 PM
|
2 months or more is not a specific date. BFL must offer a refund 30 days after the order was placed (since they have never offered a specific date). If BFL denies a refund one can complain to the FTC. If one ordered via PayPal, complain directly to them first. |
|
|
|
|
598
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL refund through Paypal claim
|
on: July 03, 2013, 11:04:15 PM
|
I'm pretty sure that if no product has been delivered, then no sale has been made.
exactly, if they delivered the product and the customer wants to return it then the "all sales are final" clause can be argued if taken to small claim court. If they never delivered the product to begin with, it doesnt apply, you can goto any court in any state or county, and will be ordered to refund the payment back to the customer. Of course to find a "BFL" legal entity or an individual to take to court is a different matter entirely, as far as i know bfl is completely anonymous, just some website ran by a bunch unknown individuals. There is no legal LLC or legal ownership established. So who are you going to sue to get your money back if paid via btc or wire? Only way is to go through the criminal route, but the feds wont even look at it if it's less than 7 figures, and if the individual are outside of the US you can completely forget about it. Making things even more complicated, btc is not considered a legal currency in US, so it's no different than if you paid with peanuts to the US legal system, or any country for that matter. Bottomline if you paid with btc, you are at the complete mercy of BFL. I kept saying it's insane the level of trust people here have and willing to part with their hard earned money/btc on some hopes & dreams without any recourse of getting the money back, but kept getting flamed. You start by suing the "owner" of the website. |
|
|
|
|
599
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL refund through Paypal claim
|
on: July 03, 2013, 10:10:12 PM
|
All sales are final is in itself illegal. As long as they can't deliver the item on the day you want your refund they have to give you the refund. That is common business pratice and even law in some countries...
Any good lawyer or judge will tell you its all in the wording, and BFL uses it well. And I quote " Bitforce SC (ASIC) products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final." The statement of "2 months or more" makes denying you a refund legal. The only way it becomes illegal is if they never deliver the product....ever. If they discontinue the item and say that it will never ship, THEN you are legally owed a refund. But, when you paid for your item, they essentially told you it would take at least 2 months. They never promised before a certain time frame. Some people have been able to successfully get refunds, and that is totally at the companies discretion. Its no different that buying a product with a warranty, and then that product breaking after that warranty has expired. They company promised that under normal use, their product will last ATLEAST that long. Anything beyond that, they do not have to fix/repair, but if they choose to do it then thats their own discretion. Same also applies to returns and countless other policies in place everyday. You are completely incorrect in your understanding of the legal precedent around this issue. U.S. Consumer Protection Laws are very clear. If they have not actually shipped the merchandise, they cannot deny your request for a refund, regardless of what terms and conditions they have in some arbitrary corner of their website. ^^This It is amazing to me how the BFL fanbois will excuse almost any behavior by the company, up to and including refusing their customers refunds. Fanboy I am not. Yes, I have a Jalapeno, but I also ordered mine in July 2012. So, someone who ordered 2 months ago who is upset about not getting a refund, I say to them, what do you say to the person who has waited almost a year to get their unit? I refer you to my post below and the FTC laws governing All Sales Finals and the legality of them offering refunds. Like it or not, they are within their legal right to deny a refund, just like you are within your legal right to ask for, and put in a claim for one. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=249125.msg2648214#msg2648214What you posted deals with when the seller must make information available, not when they must refund their customers. The rules that govern when a seller must refund are here: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-ruleSpecifically after you missed your shipping date or 30 day window: When You Must Cancel an Order You must cancel an order and provide a prompt refund when: the customer exercises any option to cancel before you ship the merchandise In any case, people who want refunds from BFL can go to the FTC. People who don't believe that the FTC will help with refunds can sit on their thumbs. |
|
|
|
|
600
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: BFL refund through Paypal claim
|
on: July 03, 2013, 09:54:03 PM
|
All sales are final is in itself illegal. As long as they can't deliver the item on the day you want your refund they have to give you the refund. That is common business pratice and even law in some countries...
Any good lawyer or judge will tell you its all in the wording, and BFL uses it well. And I quote " Bitforce SC (ASIC) products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final." The statement of "2 months or more" makes denying you a refund legal. The only way it becomes illegal is if they never deliver the product....ever. If they discontinue the item and say that it will never ship, THEN you are legally owed a refund. But, when you paid for your item, they essentially told you it would take at least 2 months. They never promised before a certain time frame. Some people have been able to successfully get refunds, and that is totally at the companies discretion. Its no different that buying a product with a warranty, and then that product breaking after that warranty has expired. They company promised that under normal use, their product will last ATLEAST that long. Anything beyond that, they do not have to fix/repair, but if they choose to do it then thats their own discretion. Same also applies to returns and countless other policies in place everyday. You are completely incorrect in your understanding of the legal precedent around this issue. U.S. Consumer Protection Laws are very clear. If they have not actually shipped the merchandise, they cannot deny your request for a refund, regardless of what terms and conditions they have in some arbitrary corner of their website. ^^This It is amazing to me how the BFL fanbois will excuse almost any behavior by the company, up to and including refusing their customers refunds. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
