Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[mishax1]

Then it looks like you'll have the most success with having ARN take on your case seeing as KnC already had their arse spanked by them over wrongly declaring consumer customers to be businesses and, on top of that, unfair and onerous terms and conditions of sale.

http://www.arn.se/English/English/

For a non EU resident I understand that this is the correct form that needs to be used - http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/en/Contact-US/ , right ?

*edit, this is for EU residents only, is there a service for non EU residents ?

**edit2, found it - http://www.consumersinternational.org/.... lets hope for the best..

[1714039436]

1714039436

[1714039436]

1714039436

[cryptodevil]

you forgot to add  LIMITATIONS OF USE half a dozen times

Oh, did I?

Maybe KnC have got the message by now and I won't need to keep repeating the details of how they shipped a product out with inherent LIMITATIONS ON USE that evidence proves they were fully aware of when they shipped, yet chose to force them on their customer anyway and finish building them after they had already been instructed on multiple occasions not to ship a product which they knew to have LIMITATIONS ON USE.

Maybe I won't have to keep repeating how these LIMITATIONS ON USE, which basically forced their customers to have to USE the Titan in a LIMITED way until KnC finally managed to fit that fourth wheel and finish building the product the customer actually paid for.

Maybe I won't have to keep repeating how, the moment KnC decided to ship a product they KNEW to have LIMITATIONS that were not intended to be in the finished product, is the moment they were legally obliged to honour cancellation instructions from their customers who did not agree to accept a product that did not meet the specifications detailed at the time of sale.

In choosing to ship Titans out before they were finished making them, most likely to not breach the Q3 deadline they had promised, they breached a different element of the sales contract and, in doing so, meant their 'No Refund!' condition did not apply because such a condition, even if a court were to accept so onerous a stipulation, would only apply if KnC did not breach the sales contract in the first place.

Which they did by knowingly shipping the Titan units out UNFINISHED and . . .

with . . .

LIMITATIONS ON USE.

[mishax1]

Can the titan 1 mine dogecoins ?

[eiliant]

The number they provided (+46 8559 253 20) is going to voicemail everytime I call, can someone confirm it works recently?

[whisper]

Better call the police and report them

[raskul]

Swedish courts should make an order against KNC to demand they shut diwn their self-mining operations. To thos of you involved in the lawsuit against them, i urge you to press for this.

[cryptodevil]

To be honest that issue would have to be handled as an entirely separate lawsuit and I'm not sure what basis you could challenge their right to mine with their own equipment. Unless, of course, there was solid evidence proving that they had been mining with their customer's equipment before sending it out and that it was to the the detriment of the hardware inasmuch as relegating it to that of being considered used equipment when it was being shipped as new.

Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would require some significant supporting evidence.

Otherwise any claim about how 'wrong' it is for KnC to have their own mining operation is nowhere near a legal argument.


I prefer it when KnC have already incriminated themselves and admitted shipping out an unfinished product after being told by their customer not to.

There's not a lot of wiggle-room for them after that.

"So, KnC, you sold the Titan miner as being fully capable of mining any scrypt coin on any mining pool, yes?"
"No, that's not what we meant, we actually meant for people to read through all the promotional posts we were making where we explicitly said those things and know that, actually, what we *really* meant was that it was intended to be just a straightforward-Litecoin miner"
"Can you define what you mean by 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner'?"
"Yes, it means whatever we need it to mean in order to avoid being held to performance specifications we didn't meet"
"So, whilst your own forum shows proof that your firm were promoting the Titan as your first "Dedicated scrypt miner" and boldly asserting that it would mine "all scrypt coins on any pool the customer chooses", you actually want to pretend that's not what you meant and that you'd rather it be accepted your description was merely that it would be a Litecoin miner?"
"Yes"
"So you shipped the Titan with it being able to mine Litecoin on the Litecoin p2pool, then?"
"Erm, no"
"Oh, was this a fault with the device?"
"No, we hadn't actually finished developing the firmware yet that would allow it to function on the Litecoin p2pool"
"Yet you shipped these units to customers anyway, even though they weren't fully-functional 'straight-Litecoin miners'?"
"Yes, but we told them we'd eventually be done building it and it could then mine on p2pool"
"So it wasn't a design fault, so much as a design fact? The device would be able to mine on p2pool, but only when you had completed building it by supplying the customer with more firmware updates?"
"I don't know about admitting that, if we could call it a fault then we'd be able to legally take our sweet time in 'repairing' it after having shipped it"
"Did you confirm to any customers that it wasn't complete and could not mine on p2pool prior to you shipping their units?"
"Only after we'd managed to ship a bunch out in the dying seconds of Q3, before that we didn't mention that it wasn't done being built yet, we just said we had to 'tweak' it a little"
"So you did confirm to customers, eventually, that it could not mine on p2pool?"
"Yes, yes we did, in forum posts and in emails"
"So, after the customer had been informed that you were intending on shipping them an unfinished product, what did some of them seek to do?"
"They said we weren't shipping what they had paid for and that they were cancelling their order and required their money back"
"What did your company do"
"Shipped 'em anyway"
"Even when told not to?"
"Some might suggest it was *especially* when we were told not to, but that wouldn't be true. We just shipped 'em out no matter what the customer said"
"You shipped an unfinished product even when told not to?"
"Yes, yes we did"
"You are aware that the evidence from your own forum and emails fully incriminates your firm in this illegal behaviour?"
"No Refunds! What don't you get, norefundnorefundnorefundnorefund. Because we say so!"
"That'll be all, your honour, prosecution rests".

[s1gs3gv]

Sounds like the inevitable judgement against KNC will come with PUNITIVE DAMAGES !

[raskul]

Yeah, i was thinking about the frankenjups they sent out, having pulled them straight off the datorhall shelves.
We all know that's what happened but perhaps proving it may be another matter.

[Phoenix1969]

Oh, finally got my Neptune Y cable adapters...  Does that mean we can run them now?   OMG

[Bogart]

I'm not sure what basis you could challenge their right to mine with their own equipment. [...]

Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would require some significant supporting evidence.

Otherwise any claim about how 'wrong' it is for KnC to have their own mining operation is nowhere near a legal argument.

Well, they did kind of promise not to mine very much:

Q: Why are you selling the Miners and don’t mine yourself (will you use the miners for mining yourself)? ▾
A: We are mining ourselves, but we believe in the bitcoin project and a diversified market is the best for all parties. We will continue to mine but we do not believe in a monopoly of miners. We will not mine with more than 5% of the hash rate we sell, and we will never mine with customer hardware.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140704032338/https://www.kncminer.com/pages/faq (emphasis added)

I'm sure that plenty of customers (myself included), when evaluating their decision to purchase, counted on KnC keeping their word and not competing with their own customers on the massive scale that they are today.

[raskul]

I'm not sure what basis you could challenge their right to mine with their own equipment. [...]

Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would require some significant supporting evidence.

Otherwise any claim about how 'wrong' it is for KnC to have their own mining operation is nowhere near a legal argument.

Well, they did kind of promise not to mine very much:

Q: Why are you selling the Miners and don’t mine yourself (will you use the miners for mining yourself)? ▾
A: We are mining ourselves, but we believe in the bitcoin project and a diversified market is the best for all parties. We will continue to mine but we do not believe in a monopoly of miners. We will not mine with more than 5% of the hash rate we sell, and we will never mine with customer hardware.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140704032338/https://www.kncminer.com/pages/faq (emphasis added)

I'm sure that plenty of customers (myself included), when evaluating their decision to purchase, counted on KnC keeping their word and not competing with their own customers on the massive scale that they are today.

this.

considering that at the time of purchase, KNC were one of the large players in the h/w market (still are) and to commit to mining with their current % of the network hashrate, buyers would have had to seriously consider the viability of their investment.

"KNC - IN COMPETITION WITH OUR CUSTOMERS" is farcical - but true.

[Egon]

The number they provided (+46 8559 253 20) is going to voicemail everytime I call, can someone confirm it works recently?

I have had it answered, but it always goes to voicemail now.

[Egon]

I received a response from ARN today on my Neptune refund.  I actually received BTC on Nov 17 but that was during a pending ARN investigation I opened at the beginning of October.

Even though KnC has already issued my refund, KnC (via Per Widman of Advokaterna Liman & Partners) cited a bunch of items in the letter to ARN that KnC was allowed to treat everyone as a business per their ToC (which was added to their ToC after the Batch 0 and 1 Neptune orders).  Liman & Partners also stated in the opening paragraphs that I was never a consumer because I hadn't taken delivery of the goods; I had a good laugh at that since I have a confirmed purchase order to a home address in the USA and KnC had no problem taking (and holding) my money.  My requesting a refund prior to shipment is WHOLLY within my rights as a CONSUMER in Swedish law.

Liman & Partners seems to STILL be trying to make the play that ARN should not be allowed to assist in these matters since KnC doesn't sell to consumers.  This was a letter dated Nov 28 2014 that I received today Dec 2 from ARN.

I am keeping the case open because KnC confirmed my refund would be in USD but issued it in Bitcoin instead, ignoring my wishes.  I am seeking to give the BTC back and receive a wire transfer.

[proudpak]

I received a response from ARN today on my Neptune refund.  I actually received BTC on Nov 17 but that was during a pending ARN investigation I opened at the beginning of October.

Even though KnC has already issued my refund, KnC (via Per Widman of Advokaterna Liman & Partners) cited a bunch of items in the letter to ARN that KnC was allowed to treat everyone as a business per their ToC (which was added to their ToC after the Batch 0 and 1 Neptune orders).  Liman & Partners also stated in the opening paragraphs that I was never a consumer because I hadn't taken delivery of the goods; I had a good laugh at that since I have a confirmed purchase order to a home address in the USA and KnC had no problem taking (and holding) my money.  My requesting a refund prior to shipment is WHOLLY within my rights as a CONSUMER in Swedish law.

Liman & Partners seems to STILL be trying to make the play that ARN should not be allowed to assist in these matters since KnC doesn't sell to consumers.  This was a letter dated Nov 28 2014 that I received today Dec 2 from ARN.

I am keeping the case open because KnC confirmed my refund would be in USD but issued it in Bitcoin instead, ignoring my wishes.  I am seeking to give the BTC back and receive a wire transfer.

Does letter state what made KNC to allow to treat all customers as business? I believe they are trying to make their point for customers (titans) to get their money back. Assuming they are all correct about their TnC any USA judge will throw it out from window because it was never linked or highlighted while making a purchase. I came to know their so called TnC way months after my order, because it was linked as separate page from ordering portal.

[btc_uzr]

...
I came to know their so called TnC way months after my order, because it was linked as separate page from ordering portal.

As far as I know EU companies are required to provide the T&Cs in written form to the consumer before the order is being placed.
And isn't there a legal requirement for a checkbox 'I agree to the T&Cs' when placing an order?

unfair commercial practices ?

When you buy goods and services anywhere in the EU – whether from a website, local shop or seller outside your home country – EU law protects you against unfair commercial practices.

When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information (see your right to online information) to enable you to make an informed buying decision. If not, their actions may be considered unfair. See Redress for steps you can take in response.

Since their B2Bullshit failed 'returning unwanted goods' seems to be a valid option, too
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/shopping/shopping-abroad/returning-unwanted-goods/index_en.htm


KnC competing with their customers (mining with more than the promised 5%) sounds like an 'unfair commercial practices' as well.
You were not able to make an informed decision regarding your purchase, right ?

[raskul]

as of today, KfC have 7% of the network. that's an initial 2% you should claim in damages.
what % of the network, is the most that they have been?

[Tigggger]

as of today, KfC have 7% of the network. that's an initial 2% you should claim in damages.
what % of the network, is the most that they have been?

They never claimed 5% of the network, they claimed 5% of the amount they sell, so it's much worse than that.

[raskul]

as of today, KfC have 7% of the network. that's an initial 2% you should claim in damages.
what % of the network, is the most that they have been?

They never claimed 5% of the network, they claimed 5% of the amount they sell, so it's much worse than that.

ahhhh, thanks for clarifying that. I had presumed they had said network hash. yes, that makes the situation very much worse, for KNC.

[vesperwillow]

Spinning it another way: KNC is only mining up to 5% of the hashrate they sell, so as to not appear to be competing with customers. Because 5% of what they sell is less than 5% of the global hashrate, ergo, they aren't competing against customers (who are a small portion of the global pool), they're merely reinvesting 5% of their overhead back into the field they're supporting. Not to mention, 5% vs 95% isn't competition.

I support you guys, but just showing you how the legal team can spin that in their favor against you.