HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[RoadStress]

The other reason was that common sense and contract law make it obvious that an item priced in USD will be refunded on that basis, and not on any exchange rate that never remains constant.

There is no "common sense" in business acts, but please eat more shit. This is not a corner market, it's a promise of something. The terms never change after both parties agree upon something.

[PuertoLibre]

The USD:BTC rate remained bound within a historically narrow $90-$120 range for the period preceding HF taking orders.

That's one reason why nobody thought to clarify the then seemingly unlikely "what if BTC goes to $1 or $1000" scenarios.

The other reason was that common sense and contract law make it obvious that an item priced in USD will be refunded on that basis, and not on any exchange rate that never remains constant.

Whether you paid for your $6800 ASIC in Euros, USD, BTCs, or gold coins, there was never a reasonable basis to expect a refund equivalent to anything but the $6800 price.

Expectations of HF refunding any different amount, EG BTC worth $68 or $68,000, were never reasonable nor had any basis in common sense, much less contract law.

So what you're saying is, the promise "if you buy Baby Jet for 51 BitCoins today and it does not ship, you will be refunded the 51 BitCoins you paid" was a flat out lie? I agree with you!

[Back in the wild,wild west.]

I'll pay you 1 ounce of gold for your daughter. Not the one with a bad hip or a training bra, only the one with D cups (anachronistic references, I know) and child bearing hips.

2 months later....

I have no wife! Thats it, where is my ounce of gold?!

(The merchant response...below this line)

"Well sir, technically you gave up your ounce of gold and it was worth 3 lead bars at the time of exchange. Now it is only worth 2 lead bars. We technically only accept lead bars, therefore you will be refunded 2 lead bars."

Hey I don't want any lead bars just my ounce of gold!

"Sorry sir, we actually converted it into lead bars, so lead bars is what you'll get."

Fine, take those two lead bars and buy 1 ounce of gold and then give me that back.

"I am sorry sir, those 2 lead bars aren't worth 1 ounce of gold. So we cannot do that."

Wait, for God sakes, you said it was the same equivalent! I just want what I have given you for a wife...

"Thats the market sir, not our problem."

(Sounds familiar?)

[jimmothy]

The USD:BTC rate remained bound within a historically narrow $90-$120 range for the period preceding HF taking orders.

That's one reason why nobody thought to clarify the then seemingly unlikely "what if BTC goes to $1 or $1000" scenarios.

The other reason was that common sense and contract law make it obvious that an item priced in USD will be refunded on that basis, and not on any exchange rate that never remains constant.

Whether you paid for your $6800 ASIC in Euros, USD, BTCs, or gold coins, there was never a reasonable basis to expect a refund equivalent to anything but the $6800 price.

Expectations of HF refunding any different amount, EG BTC worth $68 or $68,000, were never reasonable nor had any basis in common sense, much less contract law.

So what you're saying is, the promise "if you buy Baby Jet for 51 BitCoins today and it does not ship, you will be refunded the 51 BitCoins you paid" was a flat out lie? I agree with you!

[Back in the wild,wild west.]

I'll pay you 1 ounce of gold for your daughter. Not the one with a bad hip or a training bra, only the one with D cups (anachronistic references, I know) and child bearing hips.

2 months later....

I have no wife! Thats it, where is my ounce of gold?!

(The merchant response...below this line)

"Well sir, technically you gave up your ounce of gold and it was worth 3 lead bars at the time of exchange. Now it is only worth 2 lead bars. We technically only accept lead bars, therefore you will be refunded 2 lead bars."

Hey I don't want any lead bars just my ounce of gold!

"Sorry sir, we actually converted it into lead bars, so lead bars is what you'll get."

Fine, take those two lead bars and buy 1 ounce of gold and then give me that back.

"I am sorry sir, those 2 lead bars aren't worth 1 ounce of gold. So we cannot do that."

Wait, for God sakes, you said it was the same equivalent! I just want what I have given you for a wife...

"Thats the market sir, not our problem."

(Sounds familiar?)

Your analogy is a bit off because nobody can even get a 2 lead bar refund. The money has disappeared out of thin air along with your promised bride.

[HardwareReviewer]

Still windfalling I see.

If it's your thing to repeat a single word over and over, I'd recommend the following:

INTELLIHASH


 

[iCEBREAKER]

Did you miss the hearing where the judge asked the US Attorney point blank for evidence of incompetence on the part of HF, and the US Attorney's silly arguments were literally laughed out of court?  There is an mp3 available, so please review it and stop making yourself look like a fucking idiot by continuing to assert explicitly rejected claims.

Your opinions already had their day in court and went nowhere but straight into the trash can, because they are rubbish.   

No I don't care enough about this case but I'd love to hear it. I'd just love to know that there was a place somewhere at some point in time where people didn't think Hashfast was full of shit.

To be honest I'd be impressed if Hashfast did manage to launder/tunnel the money successfully but I don't think they are competent enough. I think they probably got scammed somewhere along the line and lost millions in some absurd way.

Everybody does not "think Hashfast was full of shit."  Judge Montali doesn't think so, otherwise HF would not be in Chapter 11.  Thus, your craven appeal to popularity fails spectacularly.   

High tech is risky and there are plenty of ways to lose money besides being "scammed" (your lack of imagination and knowledge notwithstanding).

The facts of the bankruptcy case are in the public domain.  That you spout off already invalidated opinions without availing yourself of them only speaks to your lack of credibility, not HF's history.   

[armyof1ne]

Just to throw this out there, wasn't there some form of court meeting on the 17th, when we were supposed to get an update?!

[arorts]

Simon said "BTC" refunds not USD. He'd have otherwise provided specific clarifications obviously. Bartering and non-legal tender is not explicitly forbidden for transactions among private individuals for California businesses at all so that argument can go to sleep. In any case, whatever we may dream of, back when he said it there was no other literal interpretation irrespective of whatever the Supreme Court or any other legal institution ultimately decides. His intention was clear (yes, very stupid of him because that's very risky but nonetheless sufficiently conclusive). Let's move on...

The only reasonable interpretation of "BTC refunds" is a refund of the purchase price (which was always in USD) via BTC as a medium of exchange.

Other interpretations are not reasonable because they would imply a windfall in the event of BTC appreciation or a loss in the event of BTC depreciation, neither of which are logical, much less legally permissible.

If you chose to seek to take advantage of a "very stupid" and "very risky" interpretation because you are greedy, you got what you deserved.  

Don't return a faulty mouse next time you buy a bad one in Amazon. You might possibly be 'taking advantage' of the merchant/manufacturer good intentions. Lol. It's simply execution of a guarantee made by THEM, not customers.

Reasonable or unreasonable is not customers problem. I personally had a call with HF way back in the day and they told me BTC refund after wanting to get clarity. In addition, the protection program was in BTC (oh, wait...but not the refunds?), which makes even exponentially more stupid to think that HF meant refunds other than in BTC.
BTC refund = BTC refund as stated by him. Not in USD or in chickens or anything else no matter which way you want to look at it/slice it/cook it/hash it ;-)

[joshv06]

Just to throw this out there, wasn't there some form of court meeting on the 17th, when we were supposed to get an update?!

+1

[BitCoin Operated Boy]

I wonder why people don't, just simply ignore iCEBREAKER :-)
People, just get into pointless conversations and get upset.

[cedivad]

Just to throw this out there, wasn't there some form of court meeting on the 17th, when we were supposed to get an update?!

+1

Hearing Set OnStatus Conference scheduled for 10/24/2014 at 11:00 AM at San Francisco Courtroom 22 - Montali.(lp) (Entered: 09/10/2014)

[opieum2]

Catching up here....but with the discussion of refunding in BTC....what happened to all the BTC then? If they collected as much as it appears, then there should be a HUGE store of cash now considering how much more the value is of BTC compared to what it was when hashfast was actually selling them @ 51 BTC. Trying to peg the value of the miners now to the value of dollars is unethical at best. Since BTC is supposed to be a currency, it stands to reason you get paid in the value you paid...51BTC = 51BTC returned. Not 6800 dollars.

That is a ridiculous argument to make. It's like saying I paid in dollars, then the value increases and I get paid in pesos or some other lower valued currency instead once the dollar skyrockets. You get paid back what you paid. BTC = BTC. High or low value. Volatility COULD make it a suck ass situation, but it is fair IMO. Only reason they are not paying out the BTC value is because it disadvantages hashfast. You can bet your ass if the value of BTC was lower they would be paying it out np. It would be easier because the value would be lower, but it is not the case so they pick the value that is less in this case dollars.

At the same time refunding the BTC works to hashfast advantage because they can claim to the court that they have provided back the amount of BTC originally paid which had also gained an increase thereby freeing them from any further obligation to the customer (if you paid 51BTC a year ago you are in great shape now getting that back and it becomes worth the headaches you endured and hashfast clears out people for this) the other question becomes.....where did all the BTC go? And once it was converted to fiat, where did that go?

[iCEBREAKER]

Catching up here....but with the discussion of refunding in BTC....what happened to all the BTC then? If they collected as much as it appears, then there should be a HUGE store of cash now considering how much more the value is of BTC compared to what it was when hashfast was actually selling them @ 51 BTC. Trying to peg the value of the miners now to the value of dollars is unethical at best. Since BTC is supposed to be a currency, it stands to reason you get paid in the value you paid...51BTC = 51BTC returned. Not 6800 dollars.

That is a ridiculous argument to make. It's like saying I paid in dollars, then the value increases and I get paid in pesos or some other lower valued currency instead once the dollar skyrockets. You get paid back what you paid. BTC = BTC. High or low value. Volatility COULD make it a suck ass situation, but it is fair IMO. Only reason they are not paying out the BTC value is because it disadvantages hashfast. You can bet your ass if the value of BTC was lower they would be paying it out np. It would be easier because the value would be lower, but it is not the case so they pick the value that is less in this case dollars.

At the same time refunding the BTC works to hashfast advantage because they can claim to the court that they have provided back the amount of BTC originally paid which had also gained an increase thereby freeing them from any further obligation to the customer (if you paid 51BTC a year ago you are in great shape now getting that back and it becomes worth the headaches you endured and hashfast clears out people for this) the other question becomes.....where did all the BTC go? And once it was converted to fiat, where did that go?

If you really want to know what all the USD/BTC were spent on, the financial documentation is publicly available as part of the bankruptcy.

Instead of speculating on conspiracy theories, you could simply read those documents.

The retail products were always priced in dollars.  It does not "stand to reason" that you'd pay $6800 worth of BTC and get any other USD amount worth of BTC (or euros, or pesos, or gold coins) in return. 

It is not reasonable or legal for HF nor its customers to speculate/gamble on BTC fluctuations.  If you mistakenly believed you were making such a sophisticated play, you lost.  Especially if you were greedy and stupid enough to listen to pmorici and gmaxwell's harmful and idiotic advise to not cash your in-hand USD refund check.   

Your transparently self-serving opinion on the matter is not legitimate and only made after the fact of BTC appreciation, so it never went anywhere in court.

You may ignore me all you want, but I'd like to see you ignore (or better yet verbally abuse) a judge when he tells you the exact same things....   

[jimmothy]

Instead of speculating on conspiracy theories, you could simply read those documents.

Please share the link with us.

I'd honestly love to know how HF could "legitimately" spend 10-20 times as much as every other company producing their 28nm hardware.

[iCEBREAKER]

Instead of speculating on conspiracy theories, you could simply read those documents.

Please share the link with us.

I'd honestly love to know how HF could "legitimately" spend 10-20 times as much as every other company producing their 28nm hardware.

IF you recall, we were all excited precisely because HF was the first to do 28nm, which may be a factor.  How do you know what the handful of later 28nm competitors spent?  Or are you just piling on, using vague figures pulled from thin air?

https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/

[jimmothy]

Instead of speculating on conspiracy theories, you could simply read those documents.

Please share the link with us.

I'd honestly love to know how HF could "legitimately" spend 10-20 times as much as every other company producing their 28nm hardware.

IF you recall, we were all excited precisely because HF was the first to do 28nm, which may be a factor.  How do you know what the handful of later 28nm competitors spent?  Or are you just piling on, using vague figures pulled from thin air?

https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/

Which document includes the financial info/excuses?

28nm tech is several years old so it's not like HF was paying a premium to be first. Hashfast also claims to have more GH/s per wafer than any other company so the chip cost shouldn't be the issue.

I don't know what 28nm manufacturers spent on production but they are all (excluding KNC/CT) currently selling hardware for less than $1/gh so it has to be less than that.

I do know that AM gen3 production costs are less than $0.4/gh so even with a process size disadvantage they could still produce hardware for less than 1/20th of what Hashfast spent.

[cedivad]

HF wasn't first. That's yet another of his bullshit.

[iCEBREAKER]

HF wasn't first. That's yet another of his bullshit.

HF was the first full custom 28nm ASIC.  KnC used a shortcut.

That's why we ordered from them, if you can remember that far back.   

[BitCoin Operated Boy]

I don't care about BTC. I paid in USD and never got it back.

It means that it was used for embezzlement. Or simply stolen. It's that hashfuc#ing simple...

[cedivad]

HF was the first full custom 28nm ASIC.  KnC used a shortcut.

Shortcut that made them something like a hundred million dollars.

But yeah, have fun bragging about the full custom asic while they were lying to our very faces about the never arrived promised pictures of the board ... That remember, were covered by a NDA!

[RoadStress]

HF was the first full custom 28nm ASIC.  KnC used a shortcut.

That's why we ordered from them, if you can remember that far back.   

Hmm full custom you say? That's impossible! HF chip can't be a full custom chip. If it is the it must be the worst implementation ever!