Recieved 50GH BFL Single Today!

[k9quaint]

https://bitpay.com/terms

9. Refunds and Adjustments.

Refund Procedures. In the event that you wish to issue a refund to a purchaser, BitPay can handle this. You can decide to issue a partial refund or the full amount of the initial purchase. You can also decide whether to issue the original amount of the invoice in  your local currency or in the number of Bitcoins paid. If you do not have enough funds in your BitPay account to cover the refund, BitPay may require you to deposit Bitcoins into your BitPay account to cover the refund to the purchaser. Any required currency conversion during the refund process will be calculated at a spot rate determined by BitPay, following the guidelines found here: https://bitpay.com/bitcoin-exchange-rates.
Disclosure of Your Refund Policy. Merchants are required to have a clear refund policy for their customers. We recommend you refund the amount of the initial purchase in the currency in which the item was priced.
Purchaser Complaints. Purchasers filing complaints about a purchase will be forwarded to you for resolution. BitPay reserves the right to terminate accounts which receive excessive complaints.

Excellent link, I will add it to my list. The quote you bolded stands out.
Or in the number of Bitcoins paid.  Bitpay made it possible for BFL to issue refunds in Bitcoins for the number of Bitcoins paid. BFL chose not to.

Yet people who purchased with BitPay were fully aware that BFL could issue the original amount of the invoice in (BitPay's) local currency. Due Diligence is important.

You need to distinguish between what is possible and what is fair. BFL also had the capability to deny refunds. Because Bitpay allowed BFL to deny refund requests, does that give BFL the moral, ethical, and legal right to?

If I were to accept gold bars as payment for a product I priced in (something that is not gold bars). I would refund them back an amount equaling the price in (that something that is not gold bars) that they paid.

Gold is a bad example, because it can be expensive to ship and is not as easily divisible as bitcoin.

If someone came to me and asked me to send them the gold bar back after a ~10x increase in value of the gold bar... I would tell them to take a long walk off of a short pier.

This is the root of the problem. That example you gave is a contract by barter. If you dissolve such a contract (by telling them to take a long walk off the pier), you have to give the party back what they gave you. That means either all the gold, or enough money to buy the amount of gold they gave you. You can't just give them some of their gold back because you think you deserve some based on current exchange rates.

The example I gave was one where something is used to satisfy the price of something else. If I were to use a BitPay for gold, reimbursing them the original gold bar might be impossible. I would refund them that price. I would only send them back the gold if the change in value of the gold did not warrant breaking it down to "make change" or sending something alongside the gold to makeup the difference.

Using gold for a transaction would be using barter. It doesn't matter how you describe the amount of gold ($1500, 1 ounce, 1 bar, etc). For the refund to be full, you must refund everything the customer gave to you. Giving them half a bar after they gave you a full bar would constitute a partial refund. It doesn't matter that you at some point are going to convert the gold to USD, or GBP, or RUS, or RMB, or BJs. It doesn't matter when you convert it. To make your customer whole, you must give them back what they gave you (or enough money for them to buy a replacement of what they gave you). If you only give them enough USD to buy half a gold bar, they will take you to court.

Yes. This is exactly what I was referring to. Everyone has been saying that BFL was forced by Bitpay to convert to USD and could only refund in USD.
That is not true. Thank you for finding that for me.

BFL had the choice whether to convert the purchase from BTC to USD. We don't know what they did, they might have kept it all in BTC.
BFL had the choice as to whether to refund in USD or in BTC. They chose USD.

BFL's Paypal customers who pay with something other than USD and ask for a refund get made whole using the exchange rate at the time of purchase.
BFL's BTC customers only get back some of their BTC using the exchange rate at the time of refund.
All I am asking is that BFL (who claimed they were not spending their customers money to do development) treat their BTC customers the same way they treat their PayPal customers.

I have not said that BFL were forced to convert to USD or refund in USD. I have spoken with Tony of BitPay, I know this is not the case.

Ok, but a lot of other people in the thread have. Sorry if I confused your position with theirs.

Customers of BFL chose to use BitPay despite the fact that BFL had the choice as to whether to refund in USD or in BTC. Those unaware of this have failed at performing their Due Diligence.

Again, BFL also had the choice to deny refunds. Since BFL has the ability to deny refunds though Bitpay, would it be acceptable for them to deny all refunds to all of their customers who used Bitpay?

[1715022215]

1715022215

[1715022215]

1715022215

[1715022215]

1715022215

[1715022215]

1715022215

[1715022215]

1715022215

[billotronic]

Wow, you guys are still pissing and moaning about this issue 10 pages later? There's some really good porn out in the wild that deserves a lot more attention than this shit. Grab a bottle of lotion and have yourself a good day.

best post in this thread to date! spot on!

[boonies4u]

Excellent link, I will add it to my list. The quote you bolded stands out.
Or in the number of Bitcoins paid.  Bitpay made it possible for BFL to issue refunds in Bitcoins for the number of Bitcoins paid. BFL chose not to.

Yet people who purchased with BitPay were fully aware that BFL could issue the original amount of the invoice in (BitPay's) local currency. Due Diligence is important.

You need to distinguish between what is possible and what is fair. BFL also had the capability to deny refunds. Because Bitpay allowed BFL to deny refund requests, does that give BFL the moral, ethical, and legal right to?

No, they already had the moral, ethical, and legal right to. BitPay just outlines ways that they can choose to issue refunds if they wanted to.

If I were to accept gold bars as payment for a product I priced in (something that is not gold bars). I would refund them back an amount equaling the price in (that something that is not gold bars) that they paid.

Gold is a bad example, because it can be expensive to ship and is not as easily divisible as bitcoin.

If someone came to me and asked me to send them the gold bar back after a ~10x increase in value of the gold bar... I would tell them to take a long walk off of a short pier.

This is the root of the problem. That example you gave is a contract by barter. If you dissolve such a contract (by telling them to take a long walk off the pier), you have to give the party back what they gave you. That means either all the gold, or enough money to buy the amount of gold they gave you. You can't just give them some of their gold back because you think you deserve some based on current exchange rates.

The example I gave was one where something is used to satisfy the price of something else. If I were to use a BitPay for gold, reimbursing them the original gold bar might be impossible. I would refund them that price. I would only send them back the gold if the change in value of the gold did not warrant breaking it down to "make change" or sending something alongside the gold to makeup the difference.

If you only give them enough USD to buy half a gold bar, they will take you to court.

In the situation where i used a "BitPay of Gold" I would let them take me to court. Given your description of using Gold in transactions the only smart move as a merchant is either to not accept it or to not offer refunds. It is unclear as to exactly what Bitcoin is (in terms of legal definitions). I believe one US State has a precedent of Bitcoin being a tool of barter. If you can convince a court that using BitPay (of Gold), rather than accepting the Gold itself, is an act of barter then you might have some ground. Arguing that using the actual BitPay is an act of barter is going to be an even tougher task though.

Customers of BFL chose to use BitPay despite the fact that BFL had the choice as to whether to refund in USD or in BTC. Those unaware of this have failed at performing their Due Diligence.

Again, BFL also had the choice to deny refunds. Since BFL has the ability to deny refunds though Bitpay, would it be acceptable for them to deny all refunds to all of their customers who used Bitpay?

Yes, it would have been acceptable for BFL to not offer refunds. If they were to do this, they probably wouldn't want to accept PayPal though.

edit : deny->refuse to offer, don't want to mix these up.

[mojod]

Remember when you point your finger at someone their are three looking back at you.

I don't know what kind of weird crooked fingers you have, but when I point at someone, I point at someone, not 4 different things.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3uxgwh/

He is referring to when you hold your arm out infront of you and have your index finger extended and your middle, ring, and pinky on your palm. The index finger is pointing in front of you, while the others are pointing at you.

This is why Marines point with a knife hand. Ooh Rah

http://www.blackfive.net/.a/6a00d8341bfadb53ef0167695541e8970b-pi

Is he yelling at a sailor? That looks like the new Navy uniform, and those are not navy barracks. Must be FMF trainee?

[k9quaint]

In the situation where i used a "BitPay of Gold" I would let them take me to court. Given your description of using Gold in transactions the only smart move as a merchant is either to not accept it or to not offer refunds. It is unclear as to exactly what Bitcoin is (in terms of legal definitions). I believe one US State has a precedent of Bitcoin being a tool of barter. If you can convince a court that using BitPay (of Gold), rather than accepting the Gold itself, is an act of barter then you might have some ground. Arguing that using the actual BitPay is an act of barter is going to be an even tougher task though.

Whether the BFL used Bitpay or some other plugin code to take BTC from customers is not relevant. Merchants who accept gold as payment usually don't hold that gold for 12 months and thus are not subject to exchange rate risk (if they are, they usually hedge that risk in some way). Even if they did hold the gold for 12 months, if they didn't spend the gold then why is there a risk involved in refunding it? If BFL took the BTC from Bitpay and put it in a wallet, why is it so hard for them to give it back? When I ask a bank to hold my money for me, I expect them to give it back to me in the form I gave it to them, not in worthless mortgage backed securities that they converted my USD to.

Customers of BFL chose to use BitPay despite the fact that BFL had the choice as to whether to refund in USD or in BTC. Those unaware of this have failed at performing their Due Diligence.

Again, BFL also had the choice to deny refunds. Since BFL has the ability to deny refunds though Bitpay, would it be acceptable for them to deny all refunds to all of their customers who used Bitpay?

Yes, it would have been acceptable for BFL to deny all refunds. If they were to do this, they probably wouldn't want to accept PayPal though.

I think on this point we will have to agree to disagree. BFL declared on these forums and their own that customers can ask for a refund whenever they want one. I feel that if BFL then denied refunds to all those who asked, it would be morally and ethically wrong. It would almost certainly be illegal as well, but that is for courts and lawyers to act on.

People who paid BFL in BTC lost out compared to people who used PayPal. That precedent is bad for BTC as a going concern.
To get a refund you have to supply BFL with a PayPal or Bank account, so why use BTC at all? No recourse, and partial refunds in a currency that might not be yours.

Edit: I missed your edit, could you clarify please?
After BFL offered full refunds to all customers, is it ok for BFL to deny refunds because BitPay gives them the ability to?

[boonies4u]

BitPay is not a bank, and they were never required to put their BTC or USD received in an escrow account. If you (customer) wanted to ensure that every single BTC could have been returned to you, you should have requested that you put your BTC in an escrow wallet (controlled by a third party) until your device was shipped.

That way...

1. You know that none of the BTC have been spent
2. You can receive back every single BTC back

After BFL offered full refunds to all customers, is it ok for BFL to deny refunds because BitPay gives them the ability to?

BFL is offering full refunds. It is not okay for BFL to deny full refunds now that they are offering them. We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of full refund.

[Malawi]

Do this (assuming you are from the US):
Go to an online store in England and find a product "priced in" GBP that accepts Paypal.
Buy the product, and pay for it with USD.
Ask for a refund and see if you get USD or GBP back.

(spoiler alert: you will receive USD back even though the price on the product page was in British pounds. The amount you get back should use the exchange rate at the time of purchase.)

@QuestionAuthority My entire post was typed using only one hand  

If they do this, it really just mean that PayPal takes the customers currency risk. They can probably do this because they have huge volumes.

Also - If it is priced in GBP and you pay for it with USD, it really means that they fleece you with a very poor currency-exchange, Guess that high fee also works as a hedge.

[k9quaint]

BitPay is not a bank, and they were never required to put their BTC or USD received in an escrow account.

Correct. Any expectation of escrow would have to come from either BFL or a third party.

If you (customer) wanted to ensure that every single BTC could have been returned to you, you should have requested that you put your BTC in an escrow wallet (controlled by a third party) until your device was shipped.

That way...

1. You know that none of the BTC have been spent
2. You can receive back every single BTC back

Also correct.
BFL claimed that they were segregating customer funds from operational funds for the purpose of always being able to supply customers with full refunds. Whenever customers got jittery over BFL burning through their pre-order money, BFL responded with the claim that no-preorder funds had been spent and that they were segregated from operational funds.

After BFL offered full refunds to all customers, is it ok for BFL to deny refunds because BitPay gives them the ability to?

BFL is offering full refunds. It is not okay for BFL to deny full refunds now that they are offering them. We will have to agree to disagree on the definition of full refund.

Fair enough. My definition of refund is the same as Paypals. I don't like that people who paid via Paypal get a full refund and people who paid with BTC got a "BFL refund". That says to every customer out there "don't use BTC, you can get screwed". I also don't like that people who paid via BTC need to get a Paypal or bank account to get a refund. That is also a terrible precedent to set.

[th3joker]

I think people should look at it this way, what if their 300BTC was now worth $0.50 would they still want BTC or the USD value they paid?

Kinda put things in perspective eh!

[k9quaint]

I think people should look at it this way, what if their 300BTC was now worth $0.50 would they still want BTC or the USD value they paid?

Kinda put things in perspective eh!

At least then BFL would be refunding them in BTC. 

[Pierre]

I think people should look at it this way, what if their 300BTC was now worth $0.50 would they still want BTC or the USD value they paid?

Kinda put things in perspective eh!

At least then BFL would be refunding them in BTC. 

Truth

[erk]

I think people should look at it this way, what if their 300BTC was now worth $0.50 would they still want BTC or the USD value they paid?

Kinda put things in perspective eh!

I wouldn't worry too much, the only people in denial of how currency conversion works with online purchases, are either trolls or greedy. Most normal people already know you often have to covert back and forth between currencies when you by online or get a refund.

[k9quaint]

I think people should look at it this way, what if their 300BTC was now worth $0.50 would they still want BTC or the USD value they paid?

Kinda put things in perspective eh!

I wouldn't worry too much, the only people in denial of how currency conversion works with online purchases, are either trolls or greedy. Most normal people already know you often have to covert back and forth between currencies when you by online or get a refund.

Funny, I link to Paypals refund policy which is exactly in accordance what I have been proposing BFL should do for it's customers who paid in BTC.
All Erk does is show up and say "NUH UH!!".

Telling.

[cdog]

Guys, the payment in BTC/$USD/Euro/Bitpay/Blahblah issue has officially been beat to death. Then stomped on. Then put through a blender.

Please, PLEASE let it go guys. Or take it to PMs or another thread. This thread is about a 50gh miner that shipped.

#1 question is, you obviously ordered a 60gh unit as an early preorder, so where are your extra 10gh? Have they contacted you about this?

#2, did you tell BFL that you were going to auction it? I think if you had, they probably would not have shipped it to you. What do you think?

#3, It has been 1 year and still only a handful of units have shipped, mostly to media outlets and various BFL "friends" who gladly promote for them. Now, we have also been asked to "confirm" our preorder which removes the ability to cancel it or get a refund. All of this seems fairly shady and ponzi-like. Old customers now cant get refunds, and BFL spends 99% of their time and effort securing new preorders. Granted, BFL may have had the best of intentions when they started their ASIC project, but at this point Im highly concerned because:   

#4, BFL is now looking at myriad lawsuits and local/state/federal investigations, at some point its fairly reasonable to speculate they will get tripped up on one of these and may be forced to dissolve, with all remaining customer funds being lost. Aside from the fact that its clearly not worth it to order anything from them now, in my view its clearly now a race vs time before their company implodes.

[k9quaint]

Guys, the payment in BTC/$USD/Euro/Bitpay/Blahblah issue has officially been beat to death. Then stomped on. Then put through a blender.

Please, PLEASE let it go guys. Or take it to PMs or another thread. This thread is about a 50gh miner that shipped.

#1 question is, you obviously ordered a 60gh unit as an early preorder, so where are your extra 10gh? Have they contacted you about this?

These units were shipped out of order. It may have well been a 50GH/s order

#2[/b], did you tell BFL that you were going to auction it? I think if you had, they probably would not have shipped it to you. What do you think?

Before anyone bids on it, visit http://www.coinish.com/calc/#

#3[/b], It has been 1 year and still only a handful of units have shipped, mostly to media outlets and various BFL "friends" who gladly promote for them. Now, we have also been asked to "confirm" our preorder which removes the ability to cancel it or get a refund. All of this seems fairly shady and ponzi-like. Old customers now cant get refunds, and BFL spends 99% of their time and effort securing new preorders. Granted, BFL may have had the best of intentions when they started their ASIC project, but at this point Im highly concerned because:   

Frankly, at this point I am glad BFL is doing this to their customers because their customers come here and demand the nay-sayers to "take it to PMs" and "stop beating dead horses". 

#4, BFL is now looking at myriad lawsuits and local/state/federal investigations, at some point its fairly reasonable to speculate they will get tripped up on one of these and may be forced to dissolve, with all remaining customer funds being lost. Aside from the fact that its clearly not worth it to order anything from them now, in my view its clearly now a race vs time before their company implodes.

Nah, I think they will survive. The Bitcoin ecosystem has enough people willing to give them cash. Ecosystems need predators to cull the herd. BFL is useful in this regard.

[Pierre]

Now, we have also been asked to "confirm" our preorder which removes the ability to cancel it or get a refund.

Source on this? There's actually a bet for this on one of those bitcoin betting sites!

[th3joker]

Now, we have also been asked to "confirm" our preorder which removes the ability to cancel it or get a refund.

Source on this? There's actually a bet for this on one of those bitcoin betting sites!

They did it a while back when they changed the specs from 60Ghs to 50Ghs.

[cardcomm]

This kind of angers me... BFL gives promoters the items out of line.

I have the absolute first SC Single order (#1656), and not even a shipping notification yet.

Orders start before 1600.

Months ago, a BFL employee confirmed that I was the first order. Humans make mistakes, sure, but I really wish you as a company would be a little more straight-forward, forthcoming, and transparent.

No hard feelings, Josh. I know you do your best  

Any idea who sent you that info?  I'm not sure why they would have said that... but it may have been during the transition from our old system to our new system. This is why it's hard to hire temp employees.

BFL have such a terrible reputation, mainly due to the fact they are rude to customers, and make up excuses. Funny isn't it, that comment fits the bill exactly! First Josh says "I'm not sure why they would have said that..." insinuating that Garr is lying. Then Josh decides to bumble over a few excuses. Classic BFL! If only they could get these simple things right, they wouldn’t have such a backlash. I don’t even know if they mean to do it.

Ohh wow. Check this out: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=89521.msg985559#msg985559

Bit-Pay actually was the one who verified I was the first order. That's even more reliable than a temporary employee of BFL!

This means that it is very probable that BFL is straight up lying, and shipping units to people who promise to promote their products.


Just to be clear: An honest mistake is perfectly acceptable in my mind; we're humans after all. Lying, however, is not acceptable IMO.
(Credit for finding that goes to an anonymous "friend", you know who you are )

Wow, that stinks to high heaven!

[Red_Wolf_2]

I was pretty sure the whole Garr issue with first orders was resolved pages ago. Turned out some FPGA orders prior to release were converted to ASICs, keeping their place in the queue before any preorders were placed.

Also, as I recall, BFL originally used BitInstant prior to their issue with being hacked, then switched to BitPay. Anyone able to confirm or deny?

[Garr255]

I was pretty sure the whole Garr issue with first orders was resolved pages ago. Turned out some FPGA orders prior to release were converted to ASICs, keeping their place in the queue before any preorders were placed.

Also, as I recall, BFL originally used BitInstant prior to their issue with being hacked, then switched to BitPay. Anyone able to confirm or deny?

Bitinstant is not a commercial payment processor; they are a currency converter. Unless they had some kind of private deal worked out that was not made public that wouldn't be possible.