HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[crashoveride54902]

feel for ya guys...good luck

[Minor]

We all paid different amounts by different means and at different times (and are thus subject to different TOS).
We all have different records of our transactions with HashFast so it is not really possible to put up a united front on getting full BTC refunds.
If Cedivad, actually sues and wins his case, it will not, by any means, guaranty that anyone else will win their slightly different cases.

But one thing seems to be clear: the end of October delivery date was never a possibility and was actually fraudulent false advertising that affects us all equally.

The damage that that false advertising has cost us is the amount of BTC that we have lost from getting our machines delivered in January (hopefully) rather than October, and can easily be computed^(*) (once we know for sure how fast the machines are, and when the actual delivery occurs).

I suggest that we get together to sue HashFast for that amount (plus punitive damages?).


Cedivad, what does your lawyer think of that?


^(*) I estimate the amount lost due to late delivery to be around 22BTC, assuming overclocking to 500GH/s and an early January delivery.

[dhenson]

The last communication I had was with John via a PM on bitcointalk:

Hi,

You order number is: 1460.

To complete this order, please send 89.27399159 BTC to the address below:

17yLxg2NCBcfPBn9T7PUnEmj21qWdXBxf1


Cheers,
John

This clearly requested payment in BTC with no reference whatsoever to USD.

[arorts]

We all paid different amounts by different means and at different times (and are thus subject to different TOS).
We all have different records of our transactions with HashFast so it is not really possible to put up a united front on getting full BTC refunds.
If Cedivad, actually sues and wins his case, it will not, by any means, guaranty that anyone else will win their slightly different cases.

But one thing seems to be clear: the end of October delivery date was never a possibility and was actually fraudulent false advertising that affects us all equally.

The damage that that false advertising has cost us is the amount of BTC that we have lost from getting our machines delivered in January (hopefully) rather than October, and can easily be computed^(*) (once we know for sure how fast the machines are, and when the actual delivery occurs).

I suggest that we get together to sue HashFast for that amount (plus punitive damages?).


Cedivad, what does your lawyer think of that?


^(*) I estimate the amount lost due to late delivery to be around 22BTC, assuming overclocking to 500GH/s and an early January delivery.

It's not like there were a million TOS versions. The vast majority of all Batch 1 orders should basically correspond to the same TOS. In any case, all TOS indicate refund of payment, NOT partial refunds of payments or USD conversion crap.

[Hoofprint]

gm maxwell i found amy's link

Trust links to most of the Hasfast scammers

Hashfast -main acc
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=139624

Simon- Director of scams
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=39629

Icebreaker - Paid Shill
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=17501

Amy Woodward -Engineer of Vaporware
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=143806

CypherDoc
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

Erin hashfast
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=150904

im sure cara has an account to but i cant find it

Look at all the red 
everytime i see another person add something makes my day a little brighter

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

once you see details of their Miner Protection Plan and refund details all your fears will melt away.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

From a public key alone, you could not know for sure who any of your miners are.

unless of course he knows who that miner is, which i inferred from his statement.

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

From a public key alone, you could not know for sure who any of your miners are.

A pool operator could also state this based on IP address(es), fingerprinting the hardware, etc... or simply knowing who that address really is!

I actually know who the miner is... I would not have posted otherwise.

Here's an interesting tidbit: Of the 12 images generated via Google for 1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX, 1/3 of them are directly rated to me.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Negative ratings on bitcointalk.org. 

That'll sure show them. 

(Of course give them negative trust, but really, does that get your bitcoins back?)

It seems they strive to use social marketing to gather new customers. Everyone that got defrauded should make it known on Twitter/Facebook and any other platforms they use. When people check out these websites they do often click on these to see "reviews". Much more effective than bitcointalk trust system.

Another option: http://www.ripoffreport.com/

[cedivad]

Cedivad, what does your lawyer think of that?

If we do a group action against HF we give up to any of the "protections" of the MPP. Not that i care anymore, i'm almost sure that i will refuse the shipment and sue the hell out of them. It's the only rationale solution. I will ask and report back anyway. Thanks for asking.

[Searing]

Cedivad, what does your lawyer think of that?

If we do a group action against HF we give up to any of the "protections" of the MPP. Not that i care anymore, i'm almost sure that i will refuse the shipment and sue the hell out of them. It's the only rationale solution. I will ask and report back anyway. Thanks for asking.

just a note as a bfl person who got scammed....bfl has had bbb and ftc which then forwarded it to the local gov't attorney for the county bfl is in ...this is where ftc in usa is sending this stuff ..goes no place the local county attorney is not gonna shut down a multi million dollar corp in its county....also did a direct bid to the high council of paypal fraud officers..some got refunds but such a flood paypal stopped that in like a week and yanked paypal from bfl

in the usa the regulators are basically saying 'you got your unit 9 months or 12 months late go away" time frame late makes no difference

also why no one can get enough traction with lawyers to do a class action suit.....lawyers not interested because 'eventually' may take 1yr bfl will get you an asic unit

so in usa the regulators are asleep at the switch...

just saying you may have same issues with hashfast stuff

I do know that some folk in EU DID get refunds because consumer protection is better ...just saying as applies to usa ...I went thru all this

also people have be 'successful' and won small claims court actions ...bfl just sends them a unit 1 year late or ignores it .......hard to enforce such judgments

anyway hopefully all the above won't apply and you will get your stuff or refunds or extra hash etc

Searing

[Hoofprint]

i don't understand why we cant do a class action suit, since scamfast is intent on invalidating their own ToS.
any previous agreements we have with scamfast will be null n void, including that stupid arbitration clause

[cedivad]

The only reason why you should not attempt a class action is if you think the ToS to be there to protect you and you want to enforce what they wrote on it. Points such as full refunds of the payment and payments that are specified to be made in BTC.

[cedivad]

I would like to know if anyone has a snapshot of the ToS around the end of August (like 28 of August). I'm not talking about the ToS they emailed us.

Thanks.

[Hoofprint]

I would like to know if anyone has a snapshot of the ToS around the end of August (like 28 of August). I'm not talking about the ToS they emailed us.

Thanks.

ive got version 1.B
http://pastebin.com/EfS9vmRf

version 1.F
http://pastebin.com/SFzPH8AK

if anyone has any other versions post them see if we can get them added to
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=391251

[cedivad]

This is mine. It's probably useless, but yet, here it is.

http://pastebin.com/XbreSGVV

[defcon23]

I would like to know if anyone has a snapshot of the ToS around the end of August (like 28 of August). I'm not talking about the ToS they emailed us.

Thanks.

had saved all old info before, will look later and post if found

here todays in case it is useful
http://imgur.com/a/om1Xj

and some tweets

Code:

Virtual-Notary.Org hereby notes that Twitter user "HashFast" tweeted 
the following messages on the dates and times shown below:
 

  Tests came out very well tonight. Production has been given the go-ahead!
  -- On Date: Sat Dec 28 19:59:41 +0000 2013


  Ecstatic about the Baby Jet on Eligius 700+ GH/s performance over the last few
hours.
  -- On Date: Sat Dec 28 08:01:36 +0000 2013


  Happy about the Eligius Baby Jet performance at 600+GH/s on December
24, 25, 26.  Check it out at http://t.co/NfbWVWRIOe.
  -- On Date: Sat Dec 28 07:02:00 +0000 2013


  GN chip bringup: Running two of the four die in the chip. Clocking it at 700mhz
and .84v core voltage, it's doing 248Gh/s on only 2 dies!
  -- On Date: Thu Dec 12 21:12:19 +0000 2013


 




Factoid-URL: http://virtual-notary.org/log/c38d4d10-bd5a-4e80-a767-cb1ca85a3872/
Factoid-Serial: df11ff09dc7b59318f69ecbc9e9b430054196fad68d11a137595939c57417a56
Factoid-Plugin: tweets v1.0 
Factoid-Date: Monday December 30, 2013 06:05.08 EST (UTC-0500)
 

Notary-NextSerial: 7808bc9f5b0fe2f6cd0a55e6e3dbf606c86d3fc12b299391e5d2991efe085d9e

thanx for that 

[jcambond]

Has no one read the "limitations on liability" section?

[fenwick]

I would like to know if anyone has a snapshot of the ToS around the end of August (like 28 of August). I'm not talking about the ToS they emailed us.

Thanks.

ive got version 1.B
http://pastebin.com/EfS9vmRf

version 1.F
http://pastebin.com/SFzPH8AK

if anyone has any other versions post them see if we can get them added to
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=391251

Given the fact that they keep changing it without updating the version string, I think we should collect the snapshot time, too.

(So that we have an exact date/time, and the corresponding text together.)

We should collect both the versions sent out in mails, and any direct web snapshots made by any savvy users.

If we have a full collection, I intend to upload the texts to Github, so that we can easily generate difference reports between any pair of versions, and have a clean changelog of what has been edited and when.

[Flying Hellfish]

I have never validated this information (so I don't know how accurate it is) but according to this poster, PayPal reportedly handles refunds (for purchases where a currency conversion has taken place) by issuing the refund using the exchange rate at the time of purchase.

Helpful to HF B1 customers or not I don't know, but if true it leads me to question all the posters who say things like "refunds are always handle with conversion rate at the refund date"

Paypal currency conversion policy:
https://www.paypal.com/helpcenter/main.jsp;jsessionid=rV0JKsnTq3Z197277Pg2sQ4mJ1HJWQ5xpxnJnzGxvW9J1FhW03yL!-1588418?t=solutionTab&ft=homeTab&ps&solutionId=163394&locale=en_GB&_dyncharset=UTF-8&countrycode=GB&cmd=_help&serverInstance=9012
Refunds are performed using the exchange rate which was current at the time of the original payment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236794.msg2542356#msg2542356

[fenwick]

Here is a suggestion.

Among the customers in batch 1;
 * there has been a bunch of different versions of the TOS used for the purchases
 * some has played in BTC, some in USD

Therefore, our circumstances are not exactly the same.

In a best-case situation (from HF's POV), this might stop us from acting in a coordinated way.
If we fragment our resources and purchase several different (mutually exclusive) strategies, we are decreasing our own changes to win. That way, we could do exactly what they prefer us doing.

I have a better idea. I propose sharing the costs and the winnings among the same group.
That means that even though I have paid in BTC, if we win, and I get my BTC back, I am willing to share it with those who have paid in USD.

Basically, I say we should pool all our resources, as far as the no-class-action clause allows it, and do this together. Since this will still result in multiple lawsuits, we will probably win some of the causes, and loose some others. I say we should just collect all the earnings, and share them evenly among those who are willing to participate in this action, and share the costs.

That way, it would not matter what the exact version of your TOS was; we are all in the same boat.

What do you say?

To clarify: my pledge above goes "live" if we can find a significant number of people who are willing to work together, accepting the same rules. I am not yet able to specify any threshold numbers, but I think you get the point.