[CLOSED] Avalon ASIC chip distribution

[fex]

Zefir, as I understand SebastianJu already received a refund - did you also receive one?

See here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269950.msg3053704#msg3053704

[tarmi]

indeed.

any news on refunds?

[zefir]

Update: Refund Status and Deadline

Refund Status
This is the current refund queue:

Code:

Chips	BTC	Address
------------------------------------------------------
-250	-21.5	1PxMjbE7nJub4JVQdFtopMxh4mCGxjbzfC
-100	-8.6	1DSFkmqxzyH7CynXQ76d6uc1WzSxBHTha2
-600	-51.6	1NrTTDSEQHKiSxmQqe7ch8ovMenBjUBkBZ
-500	-43.0	18uvZrG9q2hAJrY1MNxVbLs7pZZQGXELSg
-1290	-110.94	12knpx2FZaG22k1KCwhMviNZfTwYDjPCeg
-15	-1.29	1LLJGXsHZqv4DMGhi5n27PGxaNpcxFmsFq
-30	-2.58	1JphTgzZXWYqxh8JQtB2vannMSWa3yJr2A
-70	-6.02	16SSPCBRxzaiXjA6XoCpq8tBvJdhoSSPmA
-10	-0.86	16SSPCBRxzaiXjA6XoCpq8tBvJdhoSSPmA
-120	-10.32	1HaNP4owS4pfSDSeYydHuckZPmCcozLUGP
-40	-3.44	15o5rVc3doyACnZihjXmhCmNK92tGf1DMB
-20	-1.72	1HMwhanZiGHBdJUsUymvjdeLvGc8p6rXqF
-300	-25.8	1F8dG9k57uiNyPh1K8eekXbEVqjFFsuZKy
-680	-58.48	1F8dG9k57uiNyPh1K8eekXbEVqjFFsuZKy
-50	-4.3	14xFPNKEhdX4EiXFzS1heZBaee7fczjFoW
-250	-21.5	1K6cDLhcQCHjpXQD9KUM4rs9PFLgfYBpKc
-50	-4.3	1JEiGfeEDixjt3YFRNHj83y125eNzBQwrN
-150	-12.9	19FijdTUxXE4shP3uBHHGhDW32GwBC5Lyw
-200	-17.2	12V3iHq7yAbZk3XC2KDDSmJP2RzzUudkCj
-50	-4.3	1Bgu2w4vBTXDDkpWkjAeomVnRRYASnCaJV
-200	-17.2	16b2mStn1YjH8bnWYGrayLgdBMa6hAiNpU
-20	-1.72	13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-10	-0.86	13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-10	-0.86	13jHEGUfPfCPozzG2VxLYJZdjeYhv2fq5f
-200	-17.2	1ChoHXUKSkhYfTo17LNPKZK3St9NWSrSrf
-50	-4.3	1ChoHXUKSkhYfTo17LNPKZK3St9NWSrSrf
-10	-0.86	18NNZA7eV9zdE6B6fT8D3qVtaimMwkDiGh
-60	-5.16	18wizj3k69UKcayeC9NEM3mR8Ye3zfMtbT
-40	-3.44	16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-50	-4.3	16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-50	-4.3	16wD5mRQBfUHUpmZyEeFQv3sgySzZqiUX4
-20	-1.72	19bKGxRDdQzxZCiomBQTCJdTuY9hY8MaAG
-400	-34.4	19E1Hi1AEhgxfXsQH4StxHP1a6rL2gztim
-500	-43	1JZXXL1bL5oU7qTZJ9y1o1yXEm1HuSDxfx
-1150	-98.9	16MxDjVzmCQ62usJj649PFf7y5CF192NM4
-100	-8.6	13Q3eksnXYv7yaZhqtYUd8SJSKi1JJ8W53
-10	-0.86	1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-10	-0.86	1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-20	-1.72	1Gqy5JeUU9RWCnnYXeCjCaEuFts9wKyQem
-10	-0.86	1PW9fvHQdUqwSb8DMkpDFCwnGjCJp6ZWX1
-40	-3.44	18WWjvZfjDLsDuBRktL4YK5jpe2bvG7b7a
-300	-25.8	1Fpp7B3DJbjf1Tg2aodi7rPUym2UKa7gHc
-20	-1.72	17sYSprh8QbWXat1vnYoyR7kuindCcpj23
-45	-3.87	1NMrtqsMgDBp1zGSGKC6bC26tQsj1Emt85
-600	-51.6	1Ex87tbegxtyd1GGLtP1cHBidqxMQZjxhA
-20	-1.72	13niA2BjbXg3p3g6YvUy1RCm79AwB9tzgc
-30	-2.58	1VQtwHQHNyLiZ6ttRVBxcuPt8jt1U1yWG
-300	-25.8	1GjAbLU8UTn4YArcGv4kRnkMtWnqe5aq4c
-20	-1.72	1FcXcUL45YQu4aWmtZLF8uPvJPNYhV6Ee4
-100	-8.6	19sS8Duo2as8X7UTqEBR4FVFJxGyar7Ry1
-40	-3.44	1Ja5MunxuEXqx4EAhPxXaQowuq55srVH6N

That is a total amount of refund requests for 9210 chips.

I placed a refund request yesterday, but neither got an confirmation email nor BTC so far. With the refunds already processed, I'm quite confident that everyone requesting will get his coins back, therefore I will start refunding today as much as I can from my own reserves.


Refund Request Deadline
Yifu announced that 40 batches will be ready for shipment on Wednesday. Since our orders are among the early ones, chances are good that we get the remaining 5 batches sent out all at once. Therefore, the time frame to get refund requests accepted is limited.

Those of you still considering a refund, please do so until Tuesday evening GMT (2013-09-03T18:00Z, epoch 1378231200). Refund requests posted after this request can not be guaranteed to get accepted.

I have no idea what 'sort of compensation model' Avalon is referring to, but what I know for sure is that once chips are delivered, you are left with a limited scope of action and Avalon's goodwill - without means to enforce anything. So if you decide to keep your chips and hope for some additional compensation, do this solely on your own assessment and risk-awareness.

My position in this case is this: with the refunds offered, Avalon met their liability towards their direct customers and there remains no justification for legal recourses. Of course the damage dealt to the community exceeds the refunded coins: designers spent lots of time and efforts, manufacturers paid for parts and PCBs, and finally a dozen of group-buyers lost time and nerves to organize the chip distribution. Alas, IMHO this is none of Avalon's business - everyone made his decision based on own risk-reward-assessment and due diligence. Sure the manufacturers invested the most and are facing huge financial losses short term. But their efforts are not void in mid to long-term - just to name some examples: burnin proved his ability to design great mining devices and therefore was selected as designer for the PETA-MINE project; Bitmine attracted a large investor and is going to have their own 28nm ASICs soon; and finally BkkCoins showed the Bitcoin world how open source HW development is done right and gained a huge reputation that will open him doors in the future.

Since almost all designers and manufacturers have next-gen mining boards in their pipeline, instead of waiting for Avalon to offer some compensation, please consider showing your support by leaving your pre-order funds there and buy some next-gen mining rig.

[Bitcoinorama]

Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;

1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.

2). There is a huge amount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.

There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late, then far too late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.

Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.

[zefir]

Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;

1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.

2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.

There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.

Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.

Thank you for this constructive and sane response. I am perfectly with you with all you are saying. But...

I am either just tired from dealing with this over almost half a year, or just too old for this sh*t. Here in Germany we have a relevant saying (sorry for the crappy translation) like 'being right and getting your right are two different pairs of shoes', and in this case the price to get our right for what we know we are right IMHO is too high.

My argument is this: Avalon's dealings in this case are limited to chip sales (to private or group-buyers), they never had an agreement with any designer or manufacturer out there to develop and sell mining rig. There is no contract or anything you could base a legal recourse on to enforce a compensation. As most of the forum folks here IANAL, therefore I try to get some assessment by looking at potential but simple precedence cases. So what if AMD today announced some xx970 chipset and some independent developer starts designing an LC-mining card based on that without having an agreement with AMD. Then (how unexpected) chipset gets delayed or canceled, while developer already spent time and money that is lost now. Would any judge anywhere really care? My feeling is not, but again IANAL.

All we have is the contract to deliver chips with a given lead time of 9-10 weeks. There are no terms included regarding compensations for late orders nor any other form of penalties defined. All we have is a contract that was breached by Avalon and was offered full refund instead. Here I'd expect that any judge would consider this as a fair compromise.


We might speculate why all this happened and even assume that this was all planned and set up by Avalon to crush competition and keep miners invested while developing the next and next-next-gen chip. But until otherwise proven I personally give them the benefit of the doubt and assume things went wrong outside their control. Sooner or later we all will know what happened, and with that my preference is to let the market judge instead of loosing more money and nerves to lawyers.


This is only my personal opinion and in no way meant to represent this group buy or any user participating. I will provide every single bit of information or document I have available to support someone going the litigation path, but I myself am not going to dump more resources or nerves into this.

I am tired and I want to forget.

[Bitcoinorama]

Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;

1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.

2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.

There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.

Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.

Thank you for this constructive and sane response. I am perfectly with you with all you are saying. But...

I am either just tired from dealing with this over almost half a year, or just too old for this sh*t. Here in Germany we have a relevant saying (sorry for the crappy translation) like 'being right and getting your right are two different pairs of shoes', and in this case the price to get our right for what we know we are right IMHO is too high.

My argument is this: Avalon's dealings in this case are limited to chip sales (to private or group-buyers), they never had an agreement with any designer or manufacturer out there to develop and sell mining rig. There is no contract or anything you could base a legal recourse on to enforce a compensation. As most of the forum folks here IANAL, therefore I try to get some assessment by looking at potential but simple precedence cases. So what if AMD today announced some xx970 chipset and some independent developer starts designing an LC-mining card based on that without having an agreement with AMD. Then (how unexpected) chipset gets delayed or canceled, while developer already spent time and money that is lost now. Would any judge anywhere really care? My feeling is not, but again IANAL.

All we have is the contract to deliver chips with a given lead time of 9-10 weeks. There are no terms included regarding compensations for late orders nor any other form of penalties defined. All we have is a contract that was breached by Avalon and was offered full refund instead. Here I'd expect that any judge would consider this as a fair compromise.


We might speculate why all this happened and even assume that this was all planned and set up by Avalon to crush competition and keep miners invested while developing the next and next-next-gen chip. But until otherwise proven I personally give them the benefit of the doubt and assume things went wrong outside their control. Sooner or later we all will know what happened, and with that my preference is to let the market judge instead of loosing more money and nerves to lawyers.


This is only my personal opinion and in no way meant to represent this group buy or any user participating. I will provide every single bit of information or document I have available to support someone going the litigation path, but I myself am not going to dump more resources or nerves into this.

I am tired and I want to forget.

Zefir, I fully understand and both the irony, and the anger stems from your communications being infinitely greater than anything Bitsyncom ever provided, however you have every right to contest as a contract was indeed put forth by Bitsyncom, here;

http://store.avalon-asics.com/?page_id=9605

They are a company incorporated in the United States, they are not a regulated finacial service, they have broken the law with the use of the term 'investment';

"Please read the above carefully, as with all things Bitcoin one should treat this as an investment and make the decision best for you based on the liquid-able funds available at the moment when placing an order."

And the nail in the coffin in terms of agreement via contract is their button acknowledging their terms;

I accept the terms and the potential risks involved with placing an order.

This making it a legally binding contract of sale between two parties that was subsequently broken.

From that point on TSMC's own order and delivery records can be subpoenaed and Avalon's records and business activity traced and picked apart with a fine toothed comb should you wish, hence their sudden resurgence on this forum and motivation to suddenly put things right. They have broken the law and they know it.

http://www.fincen.gov/contactus.html

Only last week;

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130826-708042.html

[SebastianJu]

@zefir... after using the form Yifu is sending out an email from his private email account asking if the refund to the mentioned address is correct. I know avalon mails found the way into my spamfolder first so maybe you should check if its there...

[Bicknellski]

Good info there BeCoRama... noted.

[Bitcoinorama]

Good info there BeCoRama... noted.

Zefir and Bicknellski, this is what you need to further substantiate my claim above, from the 'Electronic Frontier Foundation' themselves;

https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service

[SebastianJu]

Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;

1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.

2). There is a huge mount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.

There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.

Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.

Thank you for this constructive and sane response. I am perfectly with you with all you are saying. But...

I am either just tired from dealing with this over almost half a year, or just too old for this sh*t. Here in Germany we have a relevant saying (sorry for the crappy translation) like 'being right and getting your right are two different pairs of shoes', and in this case the price to get our right for what we know we are right IMHO is too high.

My argument is this: Avalon's dealings in this case are limited to chip sales (to private or group-buyers), they never had an agreement with any designer or manufacturer out there to develop and sell mining rig. There is no contract or anything you could base a legal recourse on to enforce a compensation. As most of the forum folks here IANAL, therefore I try to get some assessment by looking at potential but simple precedence cases. So what if AMD today announced some xx970 chipset and some independent developer starts designing an LC-mining card based on that without having an agreement with AMD. Then (how unexpected) chipset gets delayed or canceled, while developer already spent time and money that is lost now. Would any judge anywhere really care? My feeling is not, but again IANAL.

All we have is the contract to deliver chips with a given lead time of 9-10 weeks. There are no terms included regarding compensations for late orders nor any other form of penalties defined. All we have is a contract that was breached by Avalon and was offered full refund instead. Here I'd expect that any judge would consider this as a fair compromise.


We might speculate why all this happened and even assume that this was all planned and set up by Avalon to crush competition and keep miners invested while developing the next and next-next-gen chip. But until otherwise proven I personally give them the benefit of the doubt and assume things went wrong outside their control. Sooner or later we all will know what happened, and with that my preference is to let the market judge instead of loosing more money and nerves to lawyers.


This is only my personal opinion and in no way meant to represent this group buy or any user participating. I will provide every single bit of information or document I have available to support someone going the litigation path, but I myself am not going to dump more resources or nerves into this.

I am tired and I want to forget.

Zefir, I fully understand and both the irony, and the anger stems from your communications being infinitely greater than anything Bitsyncom ever provided, however you have every right to contest as a contract was indeed put forth by Bitsyncom, here;

http://store.avalon-asics.com/?page_id=9605

They are a company incorporated in the United States, they are not a regulated finacial service, they have broken the law with the use of the term 'investment';

"Please read the above carefully, as with all things Bitcoin one should treat this as an investment and make the decision best for you based on the liquid-able funds available at the moment when placing an order."

And the nail in the coffin in terms of agreement via contract is their button acknowledging their terms;

I accept the terms and the potential risks involved with placing an order.

This making it a legally binding contract of sale between two parties that was subsequently broken.

From that point on TSMC's own order and delivery records can be subpoenaed and Avalon's records and business activity traced and picked apart with a fine toothed comb should you wish, hence their sudden resurgence on this forum and motivation to suddenly put things right. They have broken the law and they know it.

http://www.fincen.gov/contactus.html

Only last week;

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130826-708042.html

Im not so sure that this is a normal buy. Its a work on order. That means the business can keep 100% even when the customer decides to go away. Thats why burnin is giving 50% refund only, he had already costs and work. He wouldnt need to refund 50% at all by law.
Of course this might change when a product is late. Though i dont know what the rules are there then. I only will say that as long as avalon didnt breach the contract (leadtime) a customer couldnt break the law and get the bitcoins back.
But im not a lawyer, only saying what i read and think is correct...

[Bitcoinorama]

Im not so sure that this is a normal buy. Its a work on order. That means the business can keep 100% even when the customer decides to go away. Thats why burnin is giving 50% refund only, he had already costs and work. He wouldnt need to refund 50% at all by law.
Of course this might change when a product is late. Though i dont know what the rules are there then. I only will say that as long as avalon didnt breach the contract (leadtime) a customer couldnt break the law and get the bitcoins back.
But im not a lawyer, only saying what i read and think is correct...

Seb, as above, you posted just same time as I did ;

https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service

[Bogart]

Sooner or later we all will know what happened

If only.  Personally I don't think that we ever will.

I'm still waiting to hear the details of what when wrong with bASIC/BTCFPGA LLC now, almost a year after their collapse.

[flyonwall]

Sooner or later we all will know what happened

If only.  Personally I don't think that we ever will.

I'm still waiting to hear the details of what when wrong with bASIC/BTCFPGA LLC now, almost a year after their collapse.

And please don't be so sure that litigation will get you that information either. During litigation, the litigants can choose to settle anytime, and in most cases one of the items open to negotiation is how much information to make public.

[flyonwall]

Zefir, I'm happy to see something proactive occurring from the Bitsyncom camp, but please for you sake I think you need to re-consider the following;

1). Refunding from your own pocket right now. As much as I dare say Bitsyncom see the need to quell the discontent here, they are flakey at best, so if I were you I'd hold out on the notion you'll 100% receive your refund in the short term. Just for your sake to be safe.

2). There is a huge amount of chips, 135 boxes that were delivered in June to Bitsyncom, as described on the customs info using the tracking number. These are unaccounted for in their entirety. I'm surprised you would discount litigation at this point, as you must be out of a considerable sum from your own pocket beyond just the chips. Certainly Burnin will be, as will BKK, Terrahash and anyone, including all your customers that have coughed up for assembly and parts, and their own time. Certainly the assemblers can afford to refund some of the funds, but they are already huge.y out of pocket for inventory, and hours spent aside chips due to Bitsyncom's shennanigans.

There is a long way to go before this is remotely rectified. If proof to the contrary cannot be provided, which if there is truth to Bitsyncom's claims, proof could then easily be provided, fraud has taken place. It never will be rectified, but really it is up to the community to decide about litigation, and I'm surprised you are so flippant and eager to forgive, when the debt incurred is far beyond that of chips Bitsyncom promised and hand in hand over ten weeks ago. People gave up jobs, and set up businesses and bought stock for their inventory. They have already invested time and money beyond the chips themselves they will never get back. That is not cool, and needs to be addressed. Some of these people face bankruptcy, which may well could have been avoided if Bitsyncom addressed and communicated the issue as and when they knew they would be a little bit late, or reasonably late, before becoming considerably late, then far too late. The fact they didn't boggles the mind as to what, of any honesty to their claims exist. Again the truth is easy to provide evidence for, and unfortunately you may yet have to force that hand with the threat of litigation. As Bitsyncom are clearly reluctant to provide proof, again if true would be effortless, one can only assume they are not being honest. Supporting paperwork at the very least needs to provided, or if needs be demanded via legal action, for those out of pocket to be reimbursed. Again Bitsyncom's efforts in continuing to voluntarily repay back as much of the debts incurred can only benefit them in the long run in the eyes of the law.

Litigation harming Bitcoin is nonsense, it would in fact mean that companies go the extra mile to ensure Bitcoin becomes a safer alternative, further solidifying it's existence as an alternative payment method to traditional finance. It's up to the community and companies involved to play a smarter game.

I am afraid, litigation will indeed harm Bitcoin and the whole crypto-currency space. It will provide a great opening for regulators to justify regulating the whole industry, not just in the U.S., but everywhere else including Europe. When that happens, all of the Bitcoin Foundation efforts to calm down regulators will have come to naught. Do you want to have to fill out a ten-page application form to a government agency just to be able to start mining? Imagine then the bureaucrat who will decide on your business' fate: whose interest will he have in mind, yours, or the whole Bitcoin business space? I say neither. He will make the safest decision, one that will not bite him later.(Don't take that as a literal example, it is just an example, one of the effects of regulation.)

EDIT:
And the more innovative your proposed business is, the more opposition you will encounter from the bureaucrat. Goodbye innovation, the mother of Bitcoin and all crypto-currencies.

I am not saying there should be no rules either. If you care to continue this discussion, I suggest we proceed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=285654

[cchan]

@Zefir, I have asked for refund, but not in the list. Could you please check it?

[sabbah]

Will sell 80 chips from my Batch 3 pre-order (April 20). Please send me private message if you're interested.

[zefir]

@Zefir, I have asked for refund, but not in the list. Could you please check it?

It is there, you need to scroll down to see it.

[cchan]

@Zefir, I have asked for refund, but not in the list. Could you please check it?

It is there, you need to scroll down to see it.

Well, I see it. Thanks.

[dani]

I requested, but I'm not in the list. Anyhow, as there is progress in burnins assembly, is it possible to cancel the request before tuesday evening?

Thank you zefir!

[zefir]

I requested, but I'm not in the list. Anyhow, as there is progress in burnins assembly, is it possible to cancel the request before tuesday evening?

Thank you zefir!

I will check the list for your request when I am back from work.

As for canceling a posted request: well, I already asked for a refund based on the requests I collected, so I can't really handle such back and forth games. They are causing lots of work and a guarantee to make mistakes.

Therefore to state the obvious explicitly:
refund requests are final - once placed, they can not be canceled.

Also, many of you fail to follow the refund process I introduced here, but instead are sending me PMs or just asking for refunds without providing the required data. To have at least a chance of processing them correctly,
please file refund requests over the given process.


Thanks.


BTW, still no refunds received from Avalon.