HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[jelin1984]

these must be hashfast

which mining
with customers miners

what  a company


http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

[jelin1984]

and will ship the miners

when will be earn much much btc

untill now only 415 btc

when they will mining 1000 btc will start to sent the miners

[ImI]

these must be hashfast

which mining
with customers miners

what  a company


http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1Nbq2XZaRsKknf5fcT2wTXvBS31PaUWSeX

bullshit. wizkid already assured that its definitly not hashfast.

[jelin1984]

is start mining at 24 dec

why not hashfast:)))))

[ImI]

 i told you already

[RickJamesBTC]

Damn, mining almost 100btc a day now. That should pay for whatever equipment they bought pretty quickly. 

[jelin1984]

ok so hold
these btc adress

and i bet you that

when hashfast will  start sending the miners
that adress will be mining with less power
 

[allinvain]

ok so hold
these btc adress

and i bet you that

when hashfast will  start sending the miners
that adress will be mining with less power
 

Dude, read back in the thread instead of pulling speculations out of your ass. That address was confirmed by the pool operator to belong to someone OTHER THAN hashfast.

[CYPER]

ok so hold
these btc adress

and i bet you that

when hashfast will  start sending the miners
that adress will be mining with less power
 

Dude, read back in the thread instead of pulling speculations out of your ass. That address was confirmed by the pool operator to belong to someone OTHER THAN hashfast.

You expect too much of him. He can't write properly, so what makes you think he can read properly?

[viriat0]

HASHFAST USE TESTNET!!

[jspielberg]

HASHFAST USE TESTNET!!

Dude... They only have 3 working boards. 

[JWU42]

In the last 36 hours we have gone from the POTENTIAL of a 600 Gh/s board to the reality of a 425 Gh/s board.  All this is just icing on the sh*t sandwich HF is feeding us... 

[jspielberg]

Yep... It is pretty clear that HashFast is no knc.  We gambled on the wrong horse.  The lure of full BTC refunds and the MPP made the deal irresistible.  If only they were going to honor those comittments.

Maybe they will have some counter proposal to try to make their initial customer's less damaged by the ordeal but I doubt it.

[SolarSilver]

HASHFAST USE TESTNET!!

They need the generated BTC to refund their B1 customers

(HF is not going to keep those 8 BTC, right? ;-)

[ImI]

ok so hold
these btc adress

and i bet you that

when hashfast will  start sending the miners
that adress will be mining with less power
 

Dude, read back in the thread instead of pulling speculations out of your ass. That address was confirmed by the pool operator to belong to someone OTHER THAN hashfast.

You expect too much of him. He can't write properly, so what makes you think he can read properly?

 

[paranoidx]

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.

Well I'm all up for suing the shit out of these lying fucks.
Either joining a class action against them (since their MPP will be worthless anyways if we ever do get it which is doubtful)
Or each of us doing a seperate claim (preferably with the same lawyer)

[Blazed]

I always laugh when I see all the law suit threats..Has anyone ever sued BFL or Avalon??  All bark and no bite...

[jjiimm_64]

I always laugh when I see all the law suit threats..Has anyone ever sued BFL or Avalon??  All bark and no bite...

I have 210 btc on the line.. you can bet that if I dont receive my rigs by midnight tomorrow...  I am canceling order and requesting all my btc back... if they do not give me all of them I WILL be taking them to court.  possibly in conjunction with other fellow coiners here.

[perezoso]

I always laugh when I see all the law suit threats..Has anyone ever sued BFL or Avalon??  All bark and no bite...

Unlike BFL, Hashfast will get sued by a few people, I think, but you are right, most of these folks will just whine while they get reamed up the ...

For many, the economics of a lawsuit don't make sense...

One reason why I've advocated for a "Hashfast Customers Protection Union"  or something to that effect... which would band together customers to deal with Hashfast in a group.

Anyways, here is Version 1.C, date 28 August, capped by me on 1 September:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/194609352/Terms-of-Sale-HashFast-Technologies

[arorts]

If you ordered batch 1 you got an email confirmation.  In this email it has the word "full" as in "full refund."  Hashfast removes the word "full" from "full refund" which is not in their TOS.

They have changed the text of this confirmation mail later on.
In later version, it only says

If Buyer ordered one or more units of such Baby Jets, and Hashfast does not
deliver such units by that date, then Buyer may cancel the undelivered portion of
the order at Buyer's request and Hashfast will refund the payment for the units
that Buyer purchased but did not receive and canceled.

So they have (silently) removed the "full" part.

Not sure exactly when this happened, though.

Which is a stupid and useless move by HF because removing "full" from the wording DOESN'T do any shit. Refund = refund, refund is NO less than a refund.
If anyone attempts to refund less than what was originally paid it should explicitly say so as part of a contractual agreement. DUH!!

Can you imagine saying "I just fully got my Babyjet vs getting half a BabyJet. Did you fully book your cab? or just semi-book it?.
Just remember to add "full" to any action or word you say, otherwise it means that you don't really mean it. LOL!!!

Very stupid of you, HF. Shame on you!