HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[amer]

You're needlessly complicating this.  If refunds in BTC were impossible or even improbable -- for any reason -- such refunds should not have been offered.  Making impossible promises has a name: it's called lying.
This is trivial stuff.

Until a refund is issued, it's unclear what HF will actually do. Maybe BTC will drop to $100 in 3 weeks and then they'll repay everyone in BTC and we can all feel stupid about wasting 30 pages of this post on it.

I think the only point being made is that there is no legal requirement to refund in BTC, only a reputation one. Regardless they're breaking trust, not the law.

[1715201063]

1715201063

[1715201063]

1715201063

[1715201063]

1715201063

[1715201063]

1715201063

[arorts]

You're needlessly complicating this.  If refunds in BTC were impossible or even improbable -- for any reason -- such refunds should not have been offered.  Making impossible promises has a name: it's called lying.
This is trivial stuff.

Until a refund is issued, it's unclear what HF will actually do. Maybe BTC will drop to $100 in 3 weeks and then they'll repay everyone in BTC and we can all feel stupid about wasting 30 pages of this post on it.

I think the only point being made is that there is no legal requirement to refund in BTC, only a reputation one. Regardless they're breaking trust, not the law.

No legal requirement to refund in BTC?? WTF are you talking about? Call the Attorney General office and you'll soon learn that if they took money in X currency from you, well, that's the same exact currency they are obliged to refund. It's even stupid to think they have any options other than that.

[cedivad]

How exactly lying to a customer is not a crime?

Anyway, 2 days without updates.

[CYPER]

You're needlessly complicating this.  If refunds in BTC were impossible or even improbable -- for any reason -- such refunds should not have been offered.  Making impossible promises has a name: it's called lying.
This is trivial stuff.

Until a refund is issued, it's unclear what HF will actually do. Maybe BTC will drop to $100 in 3 weeks and then they'll repay everyone in BTC and we can all feel stupid about wasting 30 pages of this post on it.

I think the only point being made is that there is no legal requirement to refund in BTC, only a reputation one. Regardless they're breaking trust, not the law.

No legal requirement to refund in BTC?? WTF are you talking about? Call the Attorney General office and you'll soon learn that if they took money in X currency from you, well, that's the same exact currency they are obliged to refund. It's even stupid to think they have any options other than that.

Is BTC considered a currency in USA yet?

[amer]

No legal requirement to refund in BTC?? WTF are you talking about? Call the Attorney General office and you'll soon learn that if they took money in X currency from you, well, that's the same exact currency they are obliged to refund. It's even stupid to think they have any options other than that.

Go ahead. Call your state AG and get their take. But please don't get mad at the other people on this forum because you are wrong, we didn't design the law.

How exactly lying to a customer is not a crime?

Anyway, 2 days without updates.

Lying (by itself) is not a criminal offense. It's just shitty. There are a bunch of laws related to consumer protection which involve lying, and those are civil offenses which have legal recourse that needs to be weighed against the cost of pursuing, but so far no one in this thread has come up with any of those "real" laws that would being broken if HashFast is forced to refund people.

There is a lot of discussion based on how people believe the law "should" protect people, but even in the litigious USA, no one has identified the specific law being broken by HashFast IF they have to refund people in USD instead of BTC.

Edit: clarification.

[xstr8guy]

Forgive my ignorance, I don't have an order with HashFast and don't really keep up with this thread.  Just wanted to know if the first batch Sierras are supposed to ship by December 31st or is it just the BabyJets?

[cedivad]

First batch Sierra are exactly the same of BJ, it only changes the case. My sierra where supposed to ship 20 of October, 2013.

(twitter HF... write something... anything...)

[xstr8guy]

First batch Sierra are exactly the same of BJ, it only changes the case. My sierra where supposed to ship 20 of October, 2013.

(twitter HF... write something... anything...)

So the first batch Sierras were 400GH not 1.2TH?

[gjpminingco]

First batch Sierra are exactly the same of BJ, it only changes the case. My sierra where supposed to ship 20 of October, 2013.

(twitter HF... write something... anything...)

So the first batch Sierras were 400GH not 1.2TH?

no that is not what he is saying

[cedivad]

First batch Sierra are exactly the same of BJ, it only changes the case. My sierra where supposed to ship 20 of October, 2013.

(twitter HF... write something... anything...)

So the first batch Sierras were 400GH not 1.2TH?

No, since that i had more than one BJ i converted them to sierras.
It's just another case...

[amer]

First batch Sierra are exactly the same of BJ, it only changes the case. My sierra where supposed to ship 20 of October, 2013.

(twitter HF... write something... anything...)

So the first batch Sierras were 400GH not 1.2TH?

Each GN board is a 400GH board. A Sierra has 3, a BabyJet has 1. I think he means that the promises are the same (they are all Batch 1), not the physical machines.

[crumbs]

...
There is a lot of discussion based on how people believe the law "should" protect people, but even in the litigious USA, no one has identified the specific law being broken by HashFast IF they have to refund people in USD instead of BTC.
...

The "real" law is simple breach of contract.  A promise has been made that refunds will be in the currency of the original transaction.  This promise is not being honored.  Not sure of the exact chapter and verse -- not a lawyer, but i'm sure someone on the legal subforum would be able to help.  

[DeathAndTaxes]

There were no Sierras in batch 1.
https://hashfast.com/order-chain/

[xstr8guy]

First batch Sierra are exactly the same of BJ, it only changes the case. My sierra where supposed to ship 20 of October, 2013.

(twitter HF... write something... anything...)

So the first batch Sierras were 400GH not 1.2TH?

Each GN board is a 400GH board. A Sierra has 3, a BabyJet has 1. I think he means that the promises are the same (they are all Batch 1), not the physical machines.

Thanks for the explanation!  How else was I supposed to take "exactly the same except case"?  But you've cleared it up for me.

[cedivad]

There were no Sierras in batch 1.
https://hashfast.com/order-chain/

Just ask josh to change the case of your batch 1 BJ to sierra and he will do so... As long as you have more than 3, i guess.

Twitt something hf... this waiting is worse than the last 2 weeks. Have you burned everything?

[xstr8guy]

There were no Sierras in batch 1.
https://hashfast.com/order-chain/

Ah ok, that's really what I was asking.  So only first batch BabyJets will be delivered by Dec 31st, correct?  And the first delivery of Sierras is scheduled for when?

[Gyrsur]

do they have serious issues?

[amer]

We have no idea, communication is very rare and rarely in response to any questions asked.

[cedivad]

They have no reasons not to scream to the world the hashrate once that they have that number, unless that number is too bad or they don't have that number yet.

[Gyrsur]

yeah, but they assemble a board and then silence?