Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[raskul]

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.

I somehow think their legal team won't be plagiarising your text above 😝

[1713983323]

1713983323

[1713983323]

1713983323

[1713983323]

1713983323

[1713983323]

1713983323

[1713983323]

1713983323

[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.

I somehow think their legal team won't be plagiarising your text above 😝

If/when they do, I hope they donate some BTC to me. Or send me a Jupiter module. Help a brother out. Hahaha.

[raskul]

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.

I somehow think their legal team won't be plagiarising your text above 😝

If/when they do, I hope they donate some BTC to me. Or send me a Jupiter module. Help a brother out. Hahaha.

I'll leave it for someone else to explain why they wont 😉

[cryptodevil]

I see KnC are still intent on rewriting history:

When we released Titan in Q3 we connected this new miner with a bunch of scrypt coins and pools, including P2Pool and many fast block-switching coins. We never found a coin or pool the Titan couldn't handle but due to the different settings pool operators had implemented few of them were ready for the onslaught of a Titan and real-world hashing speeds varied on different coins and pools. Still, there's been some confusion on what capabilities the Titan has (beware of FUD spreading online). To be clear: the Titan has been able to mine all scrypt coins from its very first release.

Doesn't quite gel with the user reports that it didn't work with p2pool or, for that matter, KnC's own confirmation in that regards:

When asked at the end of October (Q4) to confirm if the reports that the Titan didn't work with p2pool were correct, Anna replied, "Unfortunately, our firmware doesn't fit this pool yet.
But you can check with pools were[sic] tested in our latest news: https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-115 "

OUR firmware doesn't fit this pool yet.

OUR firmware doesn't fit this pool yet.

[BitcoinPappi]

KNC is simply 100% lying about what the Titan could do when it was shipped in "Q3". Since I am done crying over the already spilt milk with KNC . Tough lesson to learn.

What other scrypt-n coins can Titan owners mine other than VTC seeing that it will be forked on the 16th December https://vertcoin.org/wp/ann-lyra2re-fork-scheduled/ . We can't count on KNC to deliver scrypt-n before then to attempt  to benefit by mining  VTC.

So what else would be profitable to mine with a scrypt-n asic when it gets released ?

[s1gs3gv]

I see KnC are still intent on rewriting history:

When we released Titan in Q3 we connected this new miner with a bunch of scrypt coins and pools, including P2Pool and many fast block-switching coins. We never found a coin or pool the Titan couldn't handle but due to the different settings pool operators had implemented few of them were ready for the onslaught of a Titan and real-world hashing speeds varied on different coins and pools. Still, there's been some confusion on what capabilities the Titan has (beware of FUD spreading online). To be clear: the Titan has been able to mine all scrypt coins from its very first release.

Doesn't quite gel with the user reports that it didn't work with p2pool or, for that matter, KnC's own confirmation in that regards:

When asked at the end of October (Q4) to confirm if the reports that the Titan didn't work with p2pool were correct, Anna replied, "Unfortunately, our firmware doesn't fit this pool yet.
But you can check with pools were[sic] tested in our latest news: https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-115 "

OUR firmware doesn't fit this pool yet.

OUR firmware doesn't fit this pool yet

The only people spreading FUD here are KNC. My takeaway from this statement is that they now concede that they advertised the machine as suitable for 'all scrypt applications' but are trying to obfuscate the fact that they also advertised it as being suitable for 'all scrypt applications at a minimum of 300 mh/s.

This KNC statement is at best an artful dodge and at worst a lie deception designed to save their asses in court.
Sure, the Titan does scrypt, and scrypt is scrypt. But with huge reject and stale rates on p2pool and fast block time coins it COULD NOT MINE AT ADVERTISED MINIMUM SPEEDS IN ALL SCRYPT APPLICATIONS.

I remember trying to get bfgminer on the Titan to log to a file so I could do some log captures and just trying to log to a file dropped the effective hash rate to nearly 0 and the machine had to be restarted. When I first upgraded to 1.15, bfgminer crashed 3 times in 15 minutes …

Its a POS. Always was, always will be. Nobody in their right mind, after reading thru the 1900+ preceding pages, would ever buy a KNC product, under any circumstances, for any reason, from anyone, no way, no how.

KNC clearly knew the Titan was borked for quite a while before they finally shipped a few machines in Q3. They dangled the scrypt-n carrot to try to keep the riots manageable. They have been in damage control mode since the Neptune catastrophe. Everything they have done and continue to do reeks of a desperate attempt to avoid accountability (ie: refunds) for what has been their second major serial failure to deliver a successful product.

[cryptodevil]

My takeaway from this statement is that they now concede that they advertised the machine as suitable for 'all scrypt applications' but are trying to obfuscate the fact that they also advertised it as being suitable for 'all scrypt applications at a minimum of 300 mh/s.

The 'Litecoin-miner'v'scrypt miner' is clearly bullshit when for most of the year all you ever see them promote is: "our first product dedicated to scrypt mining." with no mention of something they later attempted to call a 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner'. I imagine if their lawyer asked them to show him evidence of how they promoted this device, he would have told them to drop this absurd claim because the evidence to the contrary is damning.

There are two issues at play here, one of them a classic KnC spin, the other being the cold hard truth which is supported by evidence.

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-79
19th March 2014
"Minimum 100/MH/s of performance"

If your order is dated around this time, prior to their next announcement, they will hold you to an expectation of 100Mh/s. Any complaint you make about the Titan unit suffering from performance issues or limitations, has to compare to this minimum spec. You can't complain about it mining your scrypt target at even a single digit above 100Mh/s when it arrived, because that would be faster than the advertised minimum speed and any subsequent speed improvement they announce has their devious little 'gift' to their existing customers of awarding said performance increase 'free'. Meaning you paid for 100Mh/s and anything above that is not a contracted part of the sale.

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-80
27th March 2014
"the minimum specification of Titan will be 250 MH/s. "

If your order is dated after this point, you can clearly assert that your decision to commit to buying this device was on the basis that the minimum performance speed they clearly specified is 250Mh/s. The performance increase that has been announced is not 'free' to you because your decision to buy involved you comparing the price with the newly-announced minimum specification. You did not get your 'free gift' until they later bumped up the spec to 300Mh/s and you are all better off for that fact because now you *can* hold KnC to that 250Mh/s performance minimum.

Although, if a failure of the unit to mine at or above this speed was due to hardware issues unique to your specific machine, this is considered a fault and KnC have the right to attempt to repair this fault that has occurred in your unit.

If, however, the failure of the unit to function properly applied to all Titans and was only resolved, if it has been, by a subsequent firmware release and KnC were aware of this limitation on its use before they shipped your order to you, then they have not shipped you the product you paid for, they have not shipped you the product that they promised to deliver in return for your money, therefore, they are not entitled to keep screeching their beloved phrase, "The Titan is a No Refund product", because what they have shipped you is not a Titan at that point, it is a 'not-quite-a-Titan' which, whilst they *might* be able to refuse order cancellations while they are manufacturing it and nobody is aware of the performance limitations, absolutely ceases to be their entitlement when they are demonstrably aware of inherent performance limitations but ship the units anyway.

Example:

1. KnC have not despatched your order yet but existing users are citing serious performance problems, prompting KnC to make announcements and forum posts saying that they are attempting to resolve these issues by designing and releasing new firmware, which means they have confirmed at that point they know the Titan has limitations on its use which were not disclosed at the time of sale.

This is where they should have done the right thing and declared that people could cancel their orders if they wished to do so while they completed the specified build of the Titan, instead of digging themselves in even deeper and showing themselves to be, well, we all know what they are in this regards.

Customers who attempted to cancel their order after KnC confirmed the unit was not able to perform as promised at the time of sale and cited that as one of the reasons for their cancellation, are legally entitled to cancel and KnC are obligated to refund the money paid in full due to an essential breach of contract, namely, shipping a device which is not yet fully manufactured and, as a result, suffers from performance restrictions.

2. KnC had already despatched your order but it can be proven they were aware of the limitation on use that they intended to address after delivering it to you.

Whilst there is evidence literally littering the place, concerning KnC's awareness of the limitations this unit had after they reached the hands of their customers, when it comes to proving they were aware of it prior to shipping, well, that would need to be argued, if KnC attempted to claim they were not, as a failure on their part to properly test that the machine could perform as fully as originally promised at the time of sale. You could argue the case that, if it is assumed they were aware of the problem, the above 'not-quite-a-Titan' shipping of a known-to-be-limited-in-performance breach of contract applies but, for that matter, if KnC attempted to claim they did not know of these performance limitations, you could assert breach of contract due to their failure to properly test that the unit could, indeed, perform as well as promised at the time of sale.


BUT, whichever conditions appear to apply for you as a customer, there is always one over-riding fact they cannot dodge:

Even, for arguments sake, if the device were only being evaluated as a Litecoin-miner, the fact it could not mine on Litecoin's p2pool when such a limitation was certainly never declared at the time of sale, no matter whether KnC tested for every fast-block-coin or profit-switching-multipool in existence, KnC's failure to ship the Titan in a condition to function properly on this pool above all else, would render them guilty of knowingly shipping it in this condition or, equally as bad, being so incompetent that they didn't even test it on p2pool before they shipped.

So, KnC, which is it?

I look forward to your inevitable next word-salad announcement attempt to avoid accepting the truth which is fully supported by evidence, particularly evidence which your firm emailed to people in response to specific questions, giving explicit confirmations about known performance limitations.

Just in case you're still not sure KnC, check your outgoing email records for an evidential example: Anna (kncminer) Oct 30 08:32

[edgar]

So, KnC, which is it?

Both!

Knowingly dishonest AND incompetent, in anything other than being knowingly dishonest

[jjwhitehead]

My takeaway from this statement is that they now concede that they advertised the machine as suitable for 'all scrypt applications' but are trying to obfuscate the fact that they also advertised it as being suitable for 'all scrypt applications at a minimum of 300 mh/s.

The 'Litecoin-miner'v'scrypt miner' is clearly bullshit when for most of the year all you ever see them promote is: "our first product dedicated to scrypt mining." with no mention of something they later attempted to call a 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner'. I imagine if their lawyer asked them to show him evidence of how they promoted this device, he would have told them to drop this absurd claim because the evidence to the contrary is damning.

There are two issues at play here, one of them a classic KnC spin, the other being the cold hard truth which is supported by evidence.

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-79
19th March 2014
"Minimum 100/MH/s of performance"

If your order is dated around this time, prior to their next announcement, they will hold you to an expectation of 100Mh/s. Any complaint you make about the Titan unit suffering from performance issues or limitations, has to compare to this minimum spec. You can't complain about it mining your scrypt target at even a single digit above 100Mh/s when it arrived, because that would be faster than the advertised minimum speed and any subsequent speed improvement they announce has their devious little 'gift' to their existing customers of awarding said performance increase 'free'. Meaning you paid for 100Mh/s and anything above that is not a contracted part of the sale.

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-80
27th March 2014
"the minimum specification of Titan will be 250 MH/s. "

If your order is dated after this point, you can clearly assert that your decision to commit to buying this device was on the basis that the minimum performance speed they clearly specified is 250Mh/s. The performance increase that has been announced is not 'free' to you because your decision to buy involved you comparing the price with the newly-announced minimum specification. You did not get your 'free gift' until they later bumped up the spec to 300Mh/s and you are all better off for that fact because now you *can* hold KnC to that 250Mh/s performance minimum.

Although, if a failure of the unit to mine at or above this speed was due to hardware issues unique to your specific machine, this is considered a fault and KnC have the right to attempt to repair this fault that has occurred in your unit.

If, however, the failure of the unit to function properly applied to all Titans and was only resolved, if it has been, by a subsequent firmware release and KnC were aware of this limitation on its use before they shipped your order to you, then they have not shipped you the product you paid for, they have not shipped you the product that they promised to deliver in return for your money, therefore, they are not entitled to keep screeching their beloved phrase, "The Titan is a No Refund product", because what they have shipped you is not a Titan at that point, it is a 'not-quite-a-Titan' which, whilst they *might* be able to refuse order cancellations while they are manufacturing it and nobody is aware of the performance limitations, absolutely ceases to be their entitlement when they are demonstrably aware of inherent performance limitations but ship the units anyway.

Example:

1. KnC have not despatched your order yet but existing users are citing serious performance problems, prompting KnC to make announcements and forum posts saying that they are attempting to resolve these issues by designing and releasing new firmware, which means they have confirmed at that point they know the Titan has limitations on its use which were not disclosed at the time of sale.

This is where they should have done the right thing and declared that people could cancel their orders if they wished to do so while they completed the specified build of the Titan, instead of digging themselves in even deeper and showing themselves to be, well, we all know what they are in this regards.

Customers who attempted to cancel their order after KnC confirmed the unit was not able to perform as promised at the time of sale and cited that as one of the reasons for their cancellation, are legally entitled to cancel and KnC are obligated to refund the money paid in full due to an essential breach of contract, namely, shipping a device which is not yet fully manufactured and, as a result, suffers from performance restrictions.

2. KnC had already despatched your order but it can be proven they were aware of the limitation on use that they intended to address after delivering it to you.

Whilst there is evidence literally littering the place, concerning KnC's awareness of the limitations this unit had after they reached the hands of their customers, when it comes to proving they were aware of it prior to shipping, well, that would need to be argued, if KnC attempted to claim they were not, as a failure on their part to properly test that the machine could perform as fully as originally promised at the time of sale. You could argue the case that, if it is assumed they were aware of the problem, the above 'not-quite-a-Titan' shipping of a known-to-be-limited-in-performance breach of contract applies but, for that matter, if KnC attempted to claim they did not know of these performance limitations, you could assert breach of contract due to their failure to properly test that the unit could, indeed, perform as well as promised at the time of sale.


BUT, whichever conditions appear to apply for you as a customer, there is always one over-riding fact they cannot dodge:

Even, for arguments sake, if the device were only being evaluated as a Litecoin-miner, the fact it could not mine on Litecoin's p2pool when such a limitation was certainly never declared at the time of sale, no matter whether KnC tested for every fast-block-coin or profit-switching-multipool in existence, KnC's failure to ship the Titan in a condition to function properly on this pool above all else, would render them guilty of knowingly shipping it in this condition or, equally as bad, being so incompetent that they didn't even test it on p2pool before they shipped.

So, KnC, which is it?

I look forward to your inevitable next word-salad announcement attempt to avoid accepting the truth which is fully supported by evidence, particularly evidence which your firm emailed to people in response to specific questions, giving explicit confirmations about known performance limitations.

Just in case you're still not sure KnC, check your outgoing email records for an evidential example: Anna (kncminer) Oct 30 08:32

+1
I put together all the relevant information I could and handed it to ARN. Hopefully they can get some form of a resolution for me(and other customers)
Has anyone had any success in dealing with ARN, regarding the Titan matter?

[cryptodevil]

Just for clarity's sake, the details above are applicable to the relationship a customer has no matter whether they be classed as a consumer or business customer.

Consumer laws, FWIW, would never accept KnC's 'No Refund' screech as acceptable terms in the first place and consumer law also allows a customer to cancel simply because they changed their minds.

[s1gs3gv]

Just in case you're still not sure KnC, check your outgoing email records for an evidential example: Anna (kncminer) Oct 30 08:32

Kurt admitted more than a few times in their forum that KNC knew they had problems with p2pool, load balancing, and fast block time coins.

They shipped a half-baked product so they could meet their delivery commitments and then spent the next few months trying to get all the features working.

[Marvell1]

Sorry if this has been already published bu KNC has released beta firmware for mining Scrypt-N

Vertcoin is very profitable right now before thier move to a different algo end of month it would be wise to point your Titans to a vertcoin pool in the short term

[mishax1]

Sorry if this has been already published bu KNC has released beta firmware for mining Scrypt-N

Vertcoin is very profitable right now before thier move to a different algo end of month it would be wise to point your Titans to a vertcoin pool in the short term

Interesting, would love to hear about its profitability mhs/watt wise..

[jelin1984]

No more profit from vertcoin

Hashing at 120 MHz and did not earn more than earn from 340 MHz mining lite icon

So I am back at lite icon

[Tigggger]

Sorry if this has been already published bu KNC has released beta firmware for mining Scrypt-N

Vertcoin is very profitable right now before thier move to a different algo end of month it would be wise to point your Titans to a vertcoin pool in the short term

Interesting, would love to hear about its profitability mhs/watt wise..

It was very profitable for the first hour
It was slightly profitable for the second hour
It was even with litecoin mining for the third hour
Now it's about 40% less than litecoin mining.

[Cablez]

It was very profitable for the first hour
It was slightly profitable for the second hour
It was even with litecoin mining for the third hour
Now it's about 40% less than litecoin mining.

As these things tend to go......... 

[Searing]

It was very profitable for the first hour
It was slightly profitable for the second hour
It was even with litecoin mining for the third hour
Now it's about 40% less than litecoin mining.

As these things tend to go.........  

is any scrypt N coin going to 'stay' with scrypt N algo or are they all running for a different algo then scrypt N in that these coins were originally
touted as asic resistant?

i do not see much future in mining 'bill murry coin' as an alternative to vertcoin ..?

so what scrypt N is even kinda sorta maybe worth mining or has that ship sailed... due to knc's failed timeline on scrypt N?

(not that you are going to know it was a 'fail' from knc's point of view when they release the scrypt n option as non beta and tout it on their main site)

[jelin1984]

Is beta firmware better than 1.15 for lite coin mining or not

[btc_uzr]

Just in case you're still not sure KnC, check your outgoing email records for an evidential example: Anna (kncminer) Oct 30 08:32

Kurt admitted more than a few times in their forum that KNC knew they had problems with p2pool, load balancing, and fast block time coins.

They shipped a half-baked product so they could meet their delivery commitments and then spent the next few months trying to get all the features working.

 
Very funny how KnC tries to change the past.
It's so easy to verify that the titan did not perform as claimed.

Put older firmware, i.e. v1.01 on your miner ( https://github.com/KnCMiner/titan/releases/tag/v1.01 )
and mine 'fastcoins' on p2pool with load balancing. Take screen-shots or a video as evidence.

[coda]

this pile of shit doesn't work well (and in comparaison of what has been advertised)
that's all ...
it's a shitty and dangerous design trying to be sold anyway by some bandits


better gonna have my money back ... those suckers must pay

class action - > enabled
swedish consumer agency - > enabled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t8eoA_1jQ