HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[GalaxyASIC]

So it appears the certified letter I sent to

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Has failed:

Your item was undeliverable as addressed at 11:49 am on January 8, 2014 in SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104. It is being returned if appropriate information is available.

The San Jose one is still in route, but I had lower expectations of that one being successful.

Time for a process server I guess.

My FedEx was delivered
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.msg4401600#msg4401600
Delivery date: Jan 8, 2014 13:13

[RickJamesBTC]

Well, if someone isn't at the rented cubicle they will never be able to sign for packages.

[Witness]

Hashfast
But have no fear — we will be right back in early January.
So where are you?

[cedivad]

Find meìa connection between BFL and HashFast (however indirect).

Josh and john hanging out like old friend @ BTC conference Amsterdam, and Josh defending HF while accusing KNC that will certainly be late and not ship until months.

[Minor]

If you paid in dollars and they claimed that they don't owe you a dollar refund because they quickly bought a few bushels of coffee beans with your payment, and you're therefore only entitled to refund in coffee beans, would that make sense?

I don't see what grounds they'd have to claim that BitPay processing or no-BitPay is relevant.

Coffee grounds?

[Puppet]

That shouldn't even matter. They provided me a bitcoin address, and I paid with bitcoin. I don't care if their payment processor converted it to dollars or not; not my concern. Once the bitcoin leaves my wallet and hits the address that their website or rep provided, that's that. Everything else is an irrelevant internal detail.

If you paid in dollars and they claimed that they don't owe you a dollar refund because they quickly bought a few bushels of coffee beans with your payment, and you're therefore only entitled to refund in coffee beans, would that make sense?

Until a judge rules on this, we can only speculate. I do see both sides of the argument,  but frankly, I do think HF have a case here. AFAIK, their products were priced in dollar, not bitcoins. Bitcoins were used to fulfill the dollar amount but the number of bitcoins needed to fulfill that amount would have changed daily. Did you think that was unfair too? Its clear to me this wasnt a barter trade.

Another way to look at it; if you had paid with a bank cheque; would you expect or demand to get that very same paper cheque back? Or just the equivalent dollar amount since that cheque was just a way to supply HF with the dollars it demanded for their product? Maybe that bank cheque was signed by a bank director that became a presidential candidate or whatever, and has become worth much more in the mean time, but thats not HF's problem, or is it?

[Coin_Master]

That shouldn't even matter. They provided me a bitcoin address, and I paid with bitcoin. I don't care if their payment processor converted it to dollars or not; not my concern. Once the bitcoin leaves my wallet and hits the address that their website or rep provided, that's that. Everything else is an irrelevant internal detail.

If you paid in dollars and they claimed that they don't owe you a dollar refund because they quickly bought a few bushels of coffee beans with your payment, and you're therefore only entitled to refund in coffee beans, would that make sense?

Until a judge rules on this, we can only speculate. I do see both sides of the argument,  but frankly, I do think HF have a case here. AFAIK, their products were priced in dollar, not bitcoins. Bitcoins were used to fulfill the dollar amount but the number of bitcoins needed to fulfill that amount would have changed daily. Did you think that was unfair too? Its clear to me this wasnt a barter trade.

Another way to look at it; if you had paid with a bank cheque; would you expect or demand to get that very same paper cheque back? Or just the equivalent dollar amount since that cheque was just a way to supply HF with the dollars it demanded for their product? Maybe that bank cheque was signed by a bank director that became a presidential candidate or whatever, and has become worth much more in the mean time, but thats not HF's problem, or is it?

The details of what happened are not in question here.  The issue at hand is HashFast agreeing to refund cancelled orders with BTC, and then refusing to honor that agreement.  Simon Barber (Founder of HashFast) was asked by cycloid on the 10th of August 2013 if refunds would be in BTC.

He clearly asked in this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270384.msg2903196#msg2903196
"Now since the only payment option is in BTC Will I get the same ammount of BTC back should you fail to deliver by December 31st?"
"Or are you going to pull BFL and give refunds at exchange equivalent to USD/BTC indexed to the current fiat price per unit?"

Simon Barber's (HashFast's) official response was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270384.msg2903338#msg2903338
"Orders are taken in BTC, in the unlikely event we get to refunds they will be given in BTC."

Perhaps you do not 'see both sides of the argument'.  Both parties entered into an agreement, that agreement was conditional on the refund being in BTC.  It is starting to look more like a clear case of fraud.

[Puppet]

The details of what happened are not in question here.  The issue at hand is HashFast agreeing to refund cancelled orders with BTC, and then refusing to honor that agreement.  Simon Barber (Founder of HashFast) was asked by cycloid on the 10th of August 2013 if refunds would be in BTC.

He clearly asked in this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270384.msg2903196#msg2903196
"Now since the only payment option is in BTC Will I get the same ammount of BTC back should you fail to deliver by December 31st?"
"Or are you going to pull BFL and give refunds at exchange equivalent to USD/BTC indexed to the current fiat price per unit?"

Simon Barber's (HashFast's) official response was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270384.msg2903338#msg2903338
"Orders are taken in BTC, in the unlikely event we get to refunds they will be given in BTC."

Ok, I was not aware of the context of that statement. The statement itself can still be interpreted in several ways, to continue my analogy, HF could agree to send you another paper cheque so are not forced to get a refund through ACH, paypal or even bitcoin for that matter, but refund using the same manner you paid; however given the question he was answering to, thats difficult to argue now.

[allinvain]

So it appears the certified letter I sent to

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Has failed:

Your item was undeliverable as addressed at 11:49 am on January 8, 2014 in SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104. It is being returned if appropriate information is available.

The San Jose one is still in route, but I had lower expectations of that one being successful.

Time for a process server I guess.

Son of a bitch, and I just mailed them another refund request form (and supporting documents) to that address just yesterday. Previous to that I sent it to their San Francisco address (address on my original invoice) but like you I don't have much hope of that one actually making it into their hands.

[de_ixie]

The details of what happened are not in question here.  The issue at hand is HashFast agreeing to refund cancelled orders with BTC, and then refusing to honor that agreement.  Simon Barber (Founder of HashFast) was asked by cycloid on the 10th of August 2013 if refunds would be in BTC.

He clearly asked in this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270384.msg2903196#msg2903196
"Now since the only payment option is in BTC Will I get the same ammount of BTC back should you fail to deliver by December 31st?"
"Or are you going to pull BFL and give refunds at exchange equivalent to USD/BTC indexed to the current fiat price per unit?"

Simon Barber's (HashFast's) official response was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270384.msg2903338#msg2903338
"Orders are taken in BTC, in the unlikely event we get to refunds they will be given in BTC."

Ok, I was not aware of the context of that statement. The statement itself can still be interpreted in several ways, to continue my analogy, HF could agree to send you another paper cheque so are not forced to get a refund through ACH, paypal or even bitcoin for that matter, but refund using the same manner you paid; however given the question he was answering to, thats difficult to argue now.

Beside all things that went wrong... Hashfast clearly messed it up no doubt - my guess is it will come down to the question:
Refund of "value in" BC or refund of "exact number of" BC.

Compared to regular cross-currency business I fear interpretation will tend to "value in" BC.

To compare: An example of processing the payment in EUR:
-> In case you paid 10.000$ for a Hashfast machine in August 2013 in EUR you needed ~7.569,- EUR
-> A refund in January 2014 would net the buyer only ~7.366,- (you took -203 EUR loss due to currency risk)

Nevermind - outcome will be interesting - Good luck to everybody

[PuertoLibre]

So it appears the certified letter I sent to

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Has failed:

Your item was undeliverable as addressed at 11:49 am on January 8, 2014 in SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104. It is being returned if appropriate information is available.

The San Jose one is still in route, but I had lower expectations of that one being successful.

Time for a process server I guess.

Son of a bitch, and I just mailed them another refund request form (and supporting documents) to that address just yesterday. Previous to that I sent it to their San Francisco address (address on my original invoice) but like you I don't have much hope of that one actually making it into their hands.

Time to scan it into the PC and send it via email.

[cedivad]

Ok, I was not aware of the context of that statement. The statement itself can still be interpreted in several ways [...]

http://hashfast.org/Simon_E._M._Barber

Given those points, it's evident that if Simon didn't actually promised full Bitcoin refunds with his answer (since that this is open to interpretation), he at least tried to pursue his customers into believing that if such refunds where to be issued, they would have been of the same Bitcoin amount.

[allinvain]

So it appears the certified letter I sent to

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Has failed:

Your item was undeliverable as addressed at 11:49 am on January 8, 2014 in SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104. It is being returned if appropriate information is available.

The San Jose one is still in route, but I had lower expectations of that one being successful.

Time for a process server I guess.

Son of a bitch, and I just mailed them another refund request form (and supporting documents) to that address just yesterday. Previous to that I sent it to their San Francisco address (address on my original invoice) but like you I don't have much hope of that one actually making it into their hands.

Time to scan it into the PC and send it via email.

I did that too. I just want them to have a physical copy as well as is required by the terms of service agreement.

[Coin_Master]

Beside all things that went wrong... Hashfast clearly messed it up no doubt - my guess is it will come down to the question:
Refund of "value in" BC or refund of "exact number of" BC.

HashFast are refusing to refund in BTC, we are not even at the stage of determining what amounts of BTC will be refunded.  HashFast have indicated in an email sent to customers that the refunds must be in USD.  It is important to remain focused on the facts.  HashFast agreed to refund in BTC, and now are refusing to refund in BTC.

[aneutronic]

Anyone else want to chip in with me for a lawyer? I'm tired of being pushed around by these ASIC companies. Maybe we could all throw a little BTC to an address and all be represented by the same lawyer for the sake of convenience.

I only ordered one unit, but it's the principal of the matter. Simon said he would refund in full BTC amounts and he must honor his word. This is the first situation that I feel we actually have a case for full BTC refunds. That quote from Simon where he confirmed what Cypherdoc had said (all orders made in BTC will be refunded the full BTC amount) is the smoking gun IMO.

PS: I see people are sending in letters/faxes/etc. requesting full BTC refunds. What is the proper procedure/wording of such a document? Should I send something like this in as well?

Lets get rid of the juvenile image posting please.

Hi all.

 * Anybody not in Batch 1, don't read this.
 * Anybody in Batch 1 who believes that HashFast is going to do the right thing voluntary, without a gentle nudge from us, don't read this.
 * Anybody in Batch 1 who believes that the right way to deal with HashFast is to open more communication channels with them, don't read this.

For the rest of you:

I have found a lawyer who is willing to take our case, and help us get our BTC back, if we can cooperate.)

The name is Ray E. Gallo.

Please make up your minds about him; I think he is great. (85% winning percentage, and specialized in class and mass actions alleging large scale fraud.)

Some data:

http://gallo-law.com/attorneys/gallo.html
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/94901-ca-ray-gallo-291467.html
http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/94901-ca-ray-gallo-291467/reviews.html    <= reviews
http://www.linkedin.com/in/raygallo

(Now I let you experienced Google detectives jump on him.)

  * * *

After exchanging around 100 mails with me, and analyzing all the documents and evidence with his team, he thinks we can probably win this case for Batch 1 customers who have paid in BTC. (But of course there is no guarantee.)

As you all know, class action is forbidden by the (ever-changing) Terms of Service, but (by the nature of thing) "mass action" is not, and can not be.
So we can proceed in a “mass” basis: the same attorney working with multiple clients simultaneously.

This is like a class case in that it will give us some leverage by aggregating claims so that we can do more work on the matter.
It’s different in that they can make us try (arbitrate) every case.
(Which means that individual cases might end with success or failure independently of each other, but we can optionally pool the results, if we want to reach a fair distribution at the end.)

  * * *

Since the legal costs are (usually) pretty high, this might well be the only way to go for small customers like me, who have only bought 1 or 2 units.
(It would not make any economic sense to hire a such a strong lawyer on my own, but together, we might be able to make it.)

Ray Gallo is ready to take the case on a contingent basis, so we don't have to pay up-front; his fee comes down from the money recovered from HashFast, if we win.

The key to make this work is to collect enough participants.
He said that he is willing to take the case if there are at least around 30 Baby Jet worth of customers.


Now the question is, how many of you would you willing to participate in such an arrangement? I have 1 BJ.

DISCLAIMER: I know others are also talking to other lawyers, too. I'm not saying that everybody should stop what they are doing and stop proceeding along those lines; I
am just saying that this looks like a very good opportunity to me.

Anybody who is interested, please contact him directly via his own page, which I have linked above.

The deadline is this Friday. We have to collect enough customers by then.

Best wishes:

    fenwick

I can confirm this is legit. Any one wishing to get involved can contact me, fenwick, or the law firm directly.

 

[fubly]

[allinvain]

REFUNDS@hashfast.com

[dbbit]

If you want prove of receipt of your Refund request, do the following:

If you haven't done so yet, send the refund request to: 'refunds@hashfast.com'
-> You won't get any response.

Using the same email account, send any general question (or the same refund request) to: 'sales@hashfast.com'
-> They will send you an automatic response back from there with a link to the 'case' on fogbugz.com.


Click on that link, and scroll to the bottom. You should see a list of all your 'cases', including your refund request made to 'refunds@hashfast.com'. This proves they received it.  Print out as much as you can and keep.

[allinvain]

If you want prove of receipt of your Refund request, do the following:

If you haven't done so yet, send the refund request to: 'refunds@hashfast.com'
-> You won't get any response.

Using the same email account, send any general question (or the same refund request) to: 'sales@hashfast.com'
-> They will send you an automatic response back from there with a link to the 'case' on fogbugz.com.


Click on that link, and scroll to the bottom. You should see a list of all your 'cases', including your refund request made to 'refunds@hashfast.com'. This proves they received it.  Print out as much as you can and keep.

Great tip! Thanks

[aneutronic]

So you believed that they would be able to design and manufacture everything without touching any of the pre-order funds?

Yes, I did— or at least substantially. This is the norm in electronics manufacture, thats what investors are for, normally you don't have the customers funds before your design is done and manufactured. Pre-orders are unusual. Even in custom one off manufacture in the commercial market not only is payment normally provided _at delivery_ but goods are often invoiced net-30, so you won't get paid until sometime after delivery of the product.

Besides, you can factor out the exchange rate noise, just assume that the exchange rate was constant. In (some/most/all) states you are legally obligated to provide full refunds for pre-orders with fairly short notice on late delivery, and— obviously— in all states you are required to refund customers if you don't ship a product.  So they wouldn't have been able to meet even the most conventional of obligations, in the worst case (e.g. their design failed) if they'd been spending the pre-order funds to fund design and manufacturing.

In the mining space pre-order lets a maker lock in outsized prices and deny business to the competition by locking up the customers funds early. It might also be used to fund development and manufacture but if so, thats very risky, and may create all kind of adverse exposure for the business. Better to get investors with clearly established rights and obligations.

They clearly played us as investors.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/bitcoin-mining-chips-gear-computing-groups-competition-heats-up#p3

A typical company might take a year to 18 months to design and manufacture such a custom chip. De Castro and his partner, Simon Barber, a former engineer at the Palo Alto Research Center, tried to pull it off in a few months. They hired a team of 20 engineers and consultants and hunkered down for weeks in the offices of a local chip design consulting firm. Bills for those services ran into the millions, though HashFast had raised only $600,000 from friends and family. (Several family members balked at investing in what they called “Monopoly money,” de Castro says.) The HashFast partners raised the rest by preselling $15 million worth of mining rigs on the idea alone, without even a prototype. Naturally, the company took payment in Bitcoin.