HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[Gyrsur]

first off all! to everybody! DO NOT accept the procedure according the HF email!

Confirmation that you understand USD order totals that were originally paid with BTC can be refunded  in BTC at the USD to BTC market exchange rate on the date of refund.

it is a agreement and if you sign it HF is on the save side! the only goal of HF ist to get as many customers as they can to sign this.

request a full refund in BTC with market exchange rate on the date of order if you paid in BTC! do this immeditaly after 31 Dec if they fail to deliver. accept NO OTHER agreement and let them know this fact!

this is very important, if you sign a contract agreeing to the new terms, you are screwed. That is why this is worded this way.
PLEASE DON'T EVER DO THIS!  IF THEY SAY YOU WON'T GET A REFUND UNLESS YOU SIGN THEY ARE LYING.

If you paid in BTC, only accept that exact amount of BTC in refund. We have seen proof that the policy was in place when orders were made.

do we have a full list of all email addresses fo HF batch 1 customers? this information above is very important! no one should sign or agree to this new HF extension of the original TOS!

[1715274670]

1715274670

[defcon23]

source: HF Twitter account
1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

source: Eligius.st
1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

open in blockchain this:

https://blockchain.info/de/address/ecf0dfe07072afaed4135e99c70072cce2235a7f#

then search on the site for this:
1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

You will find it there.

Is it now absolutely clear that HF is this:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

and this:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

 

Yes or No ?

I operate Eligius.

Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.

-wk

Thanx for clarification , all the best wizkid057 !

Cheers !

[ImI]

source: HF Twitter account
1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

source: Eligius.st
1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

open in blockchain this:

https://blockchain.info/de/address/ecf0dfe07072afaed4135e99c70072cce2235a7f#

then search on the site for this:
1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

You will find it there.

Is it now absolutely clear that HF is this:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

and this:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

 

Yes or No ?

I operate Eligius.

Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.

-wk

thx!

[jelin1984]

when they will say that will ship batch 1?

[ineededausername]

Website down.
edit: they were "tinkering around" momentarily...

[fenwick]

first off all! to everybody! DO NOT accept the procedure according the HF email!

Exactly.

Confirmation that you understand USD order totals that were originally paid with BTC can be refunded  in BTC at the USD to BTC market exchange rate on the date of refund.

it is a agreement and if you sign it HF is on the save side!

Exactly.

Let me rephrase this letter:

Hey you suckers, those of you who are willing to forfeit 85% of their investment without a fight, would you please step forward? By signing this, you are waiving your rights for a full refund. We appreciate your business.

This is what this mail sounds like to my ears.

the only goal of HF is to get as many customers as they can to sign this.

request a full refund in BTC with market exchange rate on the date of order if you paid in BTC! do this immeditaly after 31 Dec if they fail to deliver. accept NO OTHER agreement and let them know this fact!

I don't fully agree with this second point.

In fact, I think HF has (at least) two goals here:

1. Chips away some of our crucial rights, by entering in to new a understanding with them.
2. Collect info about the "whiners"; those problematic clients who are so arrogant that they actually want to fight for their rights.

This second point is important too, because if they know who are the ones who actually know that they are entitled full BTC refunds, they know where to focus their energies!
For example, they might want to try to shit their very limited supply of actually working BJs to them, to avoid having to give them BTC refunds.

This is why I say that we should withhold this information from them!

Information is power, and we are in a war with them. (They started it, but we need to finish it.) So I think we should not respond do this mail at all.
There is no reason to. We can demand our refund later, as spelled out in the TOS.

Saying "OK" will take our rights away.
Saying "F.U." will place us in their attention.

I think in this case, silence is golden.

[edgie13]

I did not receive the latest email, but I am not a batch 1 customer.  The email seems like their usual psychological tactics. They want you to think that you can't have your BTC back so that you will just give up and accept their terms. They have been running mind games on us from the beginning. They call it marketing.

[1l1l11ll1l]

source: HF Twitter account
1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

source: Eligius.st
1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

open in blockchain this:

https://blockchain.info/de/address/ecf0dfe07072afaed4135e99c70072cce2235a7f#

then search on the site for this:
1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

You will find it there.

Is it now absolutely clear that HF is this:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

and this:
http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1KSZMq1L9ZWEBKEHuW7ACXWZJYdxiTdaVt

 

Yes or No ?

I operate Eligius.

Since I'm not in the business of disclosing private datas, I'll simply point out that 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX is NOT Hashfast.

-wk

Thanks for not doxing me wiz!

[jelin1984]

is impossible somenone return the refund at btc
no one company can do that

[jjiimm_64]

is impossible somenone return the refund at btc
no one company can do that

They were not suppose to use the bitcoins.  Our company will auth a credit card, but will not withdraw the funds until we actually ship.

They have the coins.  if they dont, they need to go to the open market and get them.

[ninjarobot]

is impossible somenone return the refund at btc
no one company can do that

According to Cypherdoc (who was being paid by HF at the time) HF has been holding the customer pre-order BTC until the end of year (as they should since they are not allowed to use it to fund development anyway since we are not investors or backers).

they want only those committed to leaving their BTC with HashFast until the end of the year.  if they fail to deliver, they have said they will give full refunds in BTC.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.msg2894478#msg2894478

[perezoso]

So I guess the BTC payers generally want to exercise option A?  

That is, bitch and moan about getting BTC back, and then probably 95% of you will never file suit.  This means Hashfast learned well from BFL.  History repeats itself.  Eduardo and Fisting Porn dude chuckle and pat themselves on the back, send a thank you note to Inaba.

With option C, however, we have a chance at negotiating better deal.  So, better deal for all, or possibly BTC refund for a few people, less lawyer's fees, who have the balls to sue?

Cedivad, I understand your points, but I don't think your suit is responsive to the situation of people who paid in USD.  People who paid in USD cannot sue to "get their bitcoins back".  So, we can't 'work together' with a lawsuit with your approach. Also, saying that each and every person should sue is a bit silly, as you yourself have noted that the lawsuit route, even if successful, is unlikely to be cost effective for smaller customers.

I don't disrepect your position Cedivad - I think it's a perfectly reasonable response for you - but let's not pretend it really will solve anyone else's problems.

[miter_myles]

is impossible somenone return the refund at btc
no one company can do that

According to Cypherdoc (who was being paid by HF at the time) HF has been holding the customer pre-order BTC until the end of year (as they should since they are not allowed to use it to fund development anyway since we are not investors or backers).

they want only those committed to leaving their BTC with HashFast until the end of the year.  if they fail to deliver, they have said they will give full refunds in BTC.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.msg2894478#msg2894478

lol - cypherdoc..  the pawn that was paid to keep threads on the main page and blow smoke up peoples asses...

[cedivad]

I don't disrepect your position Cedivad - I think it's a perfectly reasonable response for you - but let's not pretend it really will solve anyone else's problems.

I understand and agree completely. You have my complete support in any "white flag" action against HashFast. If there is anything i can help with just ask. On an unrelated note, how many ordered with USD? I guess that it's a minority, i'm i wrong?

[jspielberg]

The real problem here is that the initial BTC purchase price was too high for the actual delivery date (based on impossible delivery claims).

If the price had gone up 1000x but the units were able to achieve break-even with their purchase price (in BTC), only a few would give a rat's ass that they were "late".

If they want to just cancel and refund... well... that is a very expensive proposition.

My proposal is that they deliver hardware AND refund the difference between the hardware's statistical profitability (after 90 days of receipt of hardware) and the actual purchase price.  If they want to provide more hash power at an accelerated rate to reduce the refund difference amount and get to break-even faster, that is fine. 

I think that is a somewhat "win-win" proposal.

[cedivad]

They've been using gmail servers to send their @hashfast.com email.

For the recent emails, yes. The headers of this one, tough...

Received: by 10.194.138.199 (10.x is a reserved block, can't be the correct ip) with SMTP id qs7csp90853wjb;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.236.45.102 (same here) with SMTP id o66mr196684yhb.13.1376696316262;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)

[Luke-Jr]

They've been using gmail servers to send their @hashfast.com email.

For the recent emails, yes. The headers of this one, tough...

Received: by 10.194.138.199 (10.x is a reserved block, can't be the correct ip) with SMTP id qs7csp90853wjb;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.236.45.102 (same here) with SMTP id o66mr196684yhb.13.1376696316262;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)

10.x is a local block, and probably is the correct IP...

[gmaxwell]

The forum trust stuff has largely replaced the scammer tag.

I've gone ahead and and put in a negative rating for Simon Barber, and Hashfast itself.

Am I missing any other parties which acted as agents for hashfast and concretely promoted the belief that if hashfast failed to deliver they would refund the full amount paid?

[Edit: I've removed Cypherdoc because he claims to be a victim too. If I were going to down-rate everyone who in honest ignorance promoted something that turned out badly, I'd need to be down-rating a lot of people.  If the trust system had a softer way of making notes on traders I'd still whine, perhaps, but the full distrust is quite forceful]

[perezoso]

My proposal is that they deliver hardware AND refund the difference between the hardware's statistical profitability (after 90 days of receipt of hardware) and the actual purchase price.  If they want to provide more hash power at an accelerated rate to reduce the refund difference amount and get to break-even faster, that is fine. 

If you mean that if a BJ earns 2 BTC in 90 days, but I paid 60 BTC for it, then HF should give me 58 BTC, I think that's not one that the company is likely to agree to.

[cedivad]

You are correct, it's received by, not received from. Sorry. So the information about the sending server should be on the missing headers.