► ► ►HashFast Endorsement

[crumbs]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

do you even bother to think before you troll?

it doesn't matter if they cash their BTC to USD via their own cc before they buy a BJ or if they use their BTC directly.  it still represents an ability to use their BTC hoard to purchase something useful.  the BTC is exchanging hands to someone else either way.  that's called money velocity.

get it?

Cypherdoc, i'm sure you know quite well that "changing hands" does not constitute velocity.
If it was, all we'd have to do to increase BTC velocity is send each other equal amounts of BTC.  I send you 1K BTC, you send me 1K BTC.  We got velocity. Rinse & repeat.
Think before posting catty comebacks.

but that's not what's happening here.

buyers are being given a chance to buy real hardware and dis-hoard their BTC for useful purposes.  

you're constructing a straw man argument to criticize HF.

What's happening here is BTC being cashed out -- either by buyers, who in turn will fund their CC for a BJ, or HashFast.  The end result is exactly the same -- BTC gets cashed out.
Cashing out BTC does not help bitcoin economy, otherwise selling your coin does too.

Want to help bitcoin economy?  

1.  Sell some bitcoins to yourself.
2.  Buy them back from yourself.
3. ? ? ?
4.  PROFIT!!!

Edit: Unless HashFast used your "We don't take CC because BTC velocity" argument, i'm not criticizing HashFast, just your spin.

[cypherdoc]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

do you even bother to think before you troll?

it doesn't matter if they cash their BTC to USD via their own cc before they buy a BJ or if they use their BTC directly.  it still represents an ability to use their BTC hoard to purchase something useful.  the BTC is exchanging hands to someone else either way.  that's called money velocity.

get it?

Cypherdoc, i'm sure you know quite well that "changing hands" does not constitute velocity.
If it was, all we'd have to do to increase BTC velocity is send each other equal amounts of BTC.  I send you 1K BTC, you send me 1K BTC.  We got velocity. Rinse & repeat.
Think before posting catty comebacks.

but that's not what's happening here.

buyers are being given a chance to buy real hardware and dis-hoard their BTC for useful purposes.  

you're constructing a straw man argument to criticize HF.

What's happening here is BTC being cashed out -- either by buyers, who in turn will fund their CC for a BJ, or HashFast.  The end result is exactly the same -- BTC gets cashed out.
Cashing out BTC does not help bitcoin economy, otherwise selling your coin does too.

Want to help bitcoin economy?  

1.  Sell some bitcoins to yourself.
2.  Buy them back from yourself.
3. ? ? ?
4.  PROFIT!!!
Basic etiquette & rudimentary logic dictate that acknowledge the fact.

i think there's a screw loose somewhere around here.

buyers who have been holding their BTC are being given a real life chance to exchange them for something of value.  those BTC don't just disappear into thin air when being used to buy a BJ whether they use them directly or exchange them for USD's first before buying the BJ.  

someone has to now hold those BTC other than the original buyer.  thus, they've exchanged hands and you achieve money velocity which helps the Bitcoin economy.  this is economics 101.

[crumbs]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

do you even bother to think before you troll?

it doesn't matter if they cash their BTC to USD via their own cc before they buy a BJ or if they use their BTC directly.  it still represents an ability to use their BTC hoard to purchase something useful.  the BTC is exchanging hands to someone else either way.  that's called money velocity.

get it?

Cypherdoc, i'm sure you know quite well that "changing hands" does not constitute velocity.
If it was, all we'd have to do to increase BTC velocity is send each other equal amounts of BTC.  I send you 1K BTC, you send me 1K BTC.  We got velocity. Rinse & repeat.
Think before posting catty comebacks.

but that's not what's happening here.

buyers are being given a chance to buy real hardware and dis-hoard their BTC for useful purposes.  

you're constructing a straw man argument to criticize HF.

What's happening here is BTC being cashed out -- either by buyers, who in turn will fund their CC for a BJ, or HashFast.  The end result is exactly the same -- BTC gets cashed out.
Cashing out BTC does not help bitcoin economy, otherwise selling your coin does too.

Want to help bitcoin economy?  

1.  Sell some bitcoins to yourself.
2.  Buy them back from yourself.
3. ? ? ?
4.  PROFIT!!!
Basic etiquette & rudimentary logic dictate that acknowledge the fact.

i think there's a screw loose somewhere around here.

buyers who have been holding their BTC are being given a real life chance to exchange them for something of value.  those BTC don't just disappear into thin air when being used to buy a BJ whether they use them directly or exchange them for USD's first before buying the BJ.  

someone has to now hold those BTC other than the original buyer.  thus, they've exchanged hands and you achieve money velocity which helps the Bitcoin economy.  this is economics 101.

Please, Cypherdoc, explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1.  Buyer cashes out his BTC, and funds his credit card purchase of a BJ with the proceeds.
2.  Buyer sends BTC to HashFast, who then cashes it out to dollars.

Is there a difference to the bitcoin economy, if so, what is it?

Edit: Thanks for the economics lesson, but try to answer questions directly instead.

[cypherdoc]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

do you even bother to think before you troll?

it doesn't matter if they cash their BTC to USD via their own cc before they buy a BJ or if they use their BTC directly.  it still represents an ability to use their BTC hoard to purchase something useful.  the BTC is exchanging hands to someone else either way.  that's called money velocity.

get it?

Cypherdoc, i'm sure you know quite well that "changing hands" does not constitute velocity.
If it was, all we'd have to do to increase BTC velocity is send each other equal amounts of BTC.  I send you 1K BTC, you send me 1K BTC.  We got velocity. Rinse & repeat.
Think before posting catty comebacks.

but that's not what's happening here.

buyers are being given a chance to buy real hardware and dis-hoard their BTC for useful purposes.  

you're constructing a straw man argument to criticize HF.

What's happening here is BTC being cashed out -- either by buyers, who in turn will fund their CC for a BJ, or HashFast.  The end result is exactly the same -- BTC gets cashed out.
Cashing out BTC does not help bitcoin economy, otherwise selling your coin does too.

Want to help bitcoin economy?  

1.  Sell some bitcoins to yourself.
2.  Buy them back from yourself.
3. ? ? ?
4.  PROFIT!!!
Basic etiquette & rudimentary logic dictate that acknowledge the fact.

i think there's a screw loose somewhere around here.

buyers who have been holding their BTC are being given a real life chance to exchange them for something of value.  those BTC don't just disappear into thin air when being used to buy a BJ whether they use them directly or exchange them for USD's first before buying the BJ.  

someone has to now hold those BTC other than the original buyer.  thus, they've exchanged hands and you achieve money velocity which helps the Bitcoin economy.  this is economics 101.

Please, Cypherdoc, explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1.  Buyer cashes out his BTC, and funds his credit card purchase of a BJ with the proceeds.
2.  Buyer sends BTC to HashFast, who then cashes it out to dollars.

Is there a difference to the bitcoin economy, if so, what is it?

Edit: Thanks for the economics lesson, but try to answer questions directly instead.

i never said there was a difference btwn those 2 scenarios. 

i said they both have a net positive effect on the Bitcoin economy by causing BTC to exchange hands, ie, BTC is being used for productive purposes.

this has been facilitated by the HF policy of BTC-only pricing.

[crumbs]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

do you even bother to think before you troll?

it doesn't matter if they cash their BTC to USD via their own cc before they buy a BJ or if they use their BTC directly.  it still represents an ability to use their BTC hoard to purchase something useful.  the BTC is exchanging hands to someone else either way.  that's called money velocity.

get it?

Cypherdoc, i'm sure you know quite well that "changing hands" does not constitute velocity.
If it was, all we'd have to do to increase BTC velocity is send each other equal amounts of BTC.  I send you 1K BTC, you send me 1K BTC.  We got velocity. Rinse & repeat.
Think before posting catty comebacks.

but that's not what's happening here.

buyers are being given a chance to buy real hardware and dis-hoard their BTC for useful purposes.  

you're constructing a straw man argument to criticize HF.

What's happening here is BTC being cashed out -- either by buyers, who in turn will fund their CC for a BJ, or HashFast.  The end result is exactly the same -- BTC gets cashed out.
Cashing out BTC does not help bitcoin economy, otherwise selling your coin does too.

Want to help bitcoin economy?  

1.  Sell some bitcoins to yourself.
2.  Buy them back from yourself.
3. ? ? ?
4.  PROFIT!!!
Basic etiquette & rudimentary logic dictate that acknowledge the fact.

i think there's a screw loose somewhere around here.

buyers who have been holding their BTC are being given a real life chance to exchange them for something of value.  those BTC don't just disappear into thin air when being used to buy a BJ whether they use them directly or exchange them for USD's first before buying the BJ.  

someone has to now hold those BTC other than the original buyer.  thus, they've exchanged hands and you achieve money velocity which helps the Bitcoin economy.  this is economics 101.

Please, Cypherdoc, explain to me the difference between these two scenarios:

1.  Buyer cashes out his BTC, and funds his credit card purchase of a BJ with the proceeds.
2.  Buyer sends BTC to HashFast, who then cashes it out to dollars.

Is there a difference to the bitcoin economy, if so, what is it?

Edit: Thanks for the economics lesson, but try to answer questions directly instead.

i never said there was a difference btwn those 2 scenarios. 

i said they both have a net positive effect on the Bitcoin economy by causing BTC to exchange hands, ie, BTC is being used for productive purposes.

this has been facilitated by the HF policy of BTC-only pricing.

If there is no difference between the two scenarios, why not let buyers cash out some coin, and buy with their CCs?  The buyers will be happier, while you admit that there is no difference from the BTC economic perspective.

*I can point out that by cashing out BTC, HashFast is not increasing the BTC velocity, it is increasing *the dollar velocity*, but i'm a nice guy

[cypherdoc]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

i think this is where your understanding of economics fails miserably:

you're using the term "cashing out" by the buyer or HF when someone buys a BJ as some sort of negative for the Bitcoin economy.  you think that it hurts the Bitcoin economy as if that buyer is "giving up" on Bitcoin in general.

nothing is further from the truth.  what's really happening is that BTC is now being allowed to circulate and create positive effects.  you're completely forgetting that there is someone else on the other end of that transaction who "wants" those BTC's, either the cc company or HF, thus creating an offsetting positive for the Bitcoin economy. 

someone always has to hold those BTC; they don't disappear.  whoever is holding them at a given time are typically those who "want" to hold them b/c they are bullish on Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

If there is no difference between the two scenarios, why not let buyers cash out some coin, and buy with their CCs?  The buyers will be happier, while you admit that there is no difference from the BTC economic perspective.

*I can point out that by cashing out BTC, HashFast is not increasing the BTC velocity, it is increasing *the dollar velocity*, but i'm a nice guy

i just told you why; HF "wants" those BTC b/c either:

a.  they think they'll appreciate in value
b.  they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company
c.  they want to avoid chargeback volatility so as to get a better idea of true demand for their product
d.  they want to help build the Bitcoin economy by encouraging BTC velocity thru the system

[crumbs]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

i think this is where your understanding of economics fails miserably:

you're using the term "cashing out" by the buyer or HF when someone buys a BJ as some sort of negative for the Bitcoin economy.  you think that it hurts the Bitcoin economy as if that buyer is "giving up" on Bitcoin in general.

nothing is further from the truth.  what's really happening is that BTC is now being allowed to circulate and create positive effects.  you're completely forgetting that there is someone else on the other end of that transaction who "wants" those BTC's, either the cc company or HF, thus creating an offsetting positive for the Bitcoin economy.

You're trying to spin yet again.  I merely pointed out that there is no difference who cashes out, the buyer or HashFast, as far as bitcoin economy is concerned.

someone always has to hold those BTC; they don't disappear.  whoever is holding them at a given time are typically those who "want" to hold them b/c they are bullish on Bitcoin.

Cyperdoc, i'm beginning to feel guilty for assuming malice on your part -- you obviously think that money velocity is increased by simply exchanging one currency for another, as many times as needed.
Let me help you:
If you think that cashing out BTC into dollars increases BTC velocity, or that *buying BTC with dollars* increases BTC velocity, do this:

1.  Buy BTC with dollars from yourself, then sell it to yourself for the same amount.
2.  You're an honest guy, you probably won't cheat yourself, so your risks are minimal.
3.  ? ? ?
4.  Velocity!!!

[crumbs]

If there is no difference between the two scenarios, why not let buyers cash out some coin, and buy with their CCs?  The buyers will be happier, while you admit that there is no difference from the BTC economic perspective.

*I can point out that by cashing out BTC, HashFast is not increasing the BTC velocity, it is increasing *the dollar velocity*, but i'm a nice guy

i just told you why; HF "wants" those BTC b/c either:

a.  they think they'll appreciate in value

They're taking out a risk-free loan that they don't need for funding development & production?  They're *investing my BTC?!*  If bitcoin price plummets, they're going to ask for MOAR money?
Haven't we been through this already?

b.  they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company

Then offer direct BTC payment as an option.  Along with CC.  Best of both worlds?

c.  they want to avoid chargeback volatility so as to get a better idea of true demand for their product

You mean to shield themselves from people like you?  Check.  Unfortunately, other ASIC suppliers are accepting CC.  The ones that you duped.  Good going.

d.  they want to help build the Bitcoin economy by encouraging BTC velocity thru the system

Already answered that one.  See the rest of my posts re: velocity.

[cypherdoc]

...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp.  they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way.  it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.  
...

This argument is absurd on its face.  The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.

i think this is where your understanding of economics fails miserably:

you're using the term "cashing out" by the buyer or HF when someone buys a BJ as some sort of negative for the Bitcoin economy.  you think that it hurts the Bitcoin economy as if that buyer is "giving up" on Bitcoin in general.

nothing is further from the truth.  what's really happening is that BTC is now being allowed to circulate and create positive effects.  you're completely forgetting that there is someone else on the other end of that transaction who "wants" those BTC's, either the cc company or HF, thus creating an offsetting positive for the Bitcoin economy.

You're trying to spin yet again.  I merely pointed out that there is no difference who cashes out, the buyer or HashFast, as far as bitcoin economy is concerned.

someone always has to hold those BTC; they don't disappear.  whoever is holding them at a given time are typically those who "want" to hold them b/c they are bullish on Bitcoin.

Cyperdoc, i'm beginning to feel guilty for assuming malice on your part -- you obviously think that money velocity is increased by simply exchanging one currency for another, as many times as needed.
Let me help you:
If you think that cashing out BTC into dollars increases BTC velocity, or that *buying BTC with dollars* increases BTC velocity, do this:

1.  Buy BTC with dollars from yourself, then sell it to yourself for the same amount.
2.  You're an honest guy, you probably won't cheat yourself, so your risks are minimal.
3.  ? ? ?
4.  Velocity!!!

would you please stop the strawman arguments?

i keep talking about what is really going on here by HF having a BTC-only policy.  that policy IS helping the Bitcoin economy.

otoh, you keep using this strawman argument of buying and selling to yourself as some sort of evidence that they aren't.  of course, the latter doesn't improve the Bitcoin economy.  but that is not what HF is doing, is it? 

[Vagnavs]

how about BTC with escrow? Why not offer that. Good for the community and buyer

[crumbs]

how about BTC with escrow? Why not offer that. Good for the community and buyer

They probably haven't thought of that, those techy types -- head in the clouds, so scattered when it comes to money.  I think it's a great idea.  Cypherdoc, please don't forget to thank the gentleman.

[cypherdoc]

If there is no difference between the two scenarios, why not let buyers cash out some coin, and buy with their CCs?  The buyers will be happier, while you admit that there is no difference from the BTC economic perspective.

*I can point out that by cashing out BTC, HashFast is not increasing the BTC velocity, it is increasing *the dollar velocity*, but i'm a nice guy

i just told you why; HF "wants" those BTC b/c either:

a.  they think they'll appreciate in value

They're taking out a risk-free loan that they don't need for funding development & production?  They're *investing my BTC?!*  If bitcoin price plummets, they're going to ask for MOAR money?
Haven't we been through this already?

wow, you are sure good at letting your imagination run wild!  FUD

b.  they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company

Then offer direct BTC payment as an option.  Along with CC.  Best of both worlds?

i just told you why they don't accept cc's.  your opinion that they should is just that; your opinion.

c.  they want to avoid chargeback volatility so as to get a better idea of true demand for their product

You mean to shield themselves from people like you?  Check.  Unfortunately, other ASIC suppliers are accepting CC.  The ones that you duped.  Good going.

this is what ppl like you do when their logic breaks down, they try to make a strawman attack on their opponents character.

d.  they want to help build the Bitcoin economy by encouraging BTC velocity thru the system

Already answered that one.  See the rest of my posts re: velocity.

the only thing you've answered is that you don't understand monetary velocity.

[crumbs]

...
i keep talking about what is really going on here by HF having a BTC-only policy.  that policy IS helping the Bitcoin economy.
...

Cypherdoc, if they cash out BTC to fiat, BTC economy is not helped.
Otherwise, the best thing for BTC economy is "OMG SELL ALL THE COINS!1!"  It is not.  
Selling coins for dollars is not good for BTC economy.  
It makes no difference to BTC economy.  
It does not constitute velocity.  
Get it?

[cypherdoc]

...
i keep talking about what is really going on here by HF having a BTC-only policy.  that policy IS helping the Bitcoin economy.
...

Cypherdoc, if they cash out BTC to fiat, BTC economy is not helped.
Otherwise, the best thing for BTC economy is "OMG SELL ALL THE COINS!1!"  It is not.  
Selling coins for dollars is not good for BTC economy.  
It makes no difference to BTC economy.  
It does not constitute velocity.  
Get it?

ah yes.  see, i did indeed correctly pinpoint your misunderstanding of economics.  you need to read this again carefully.  i know it's hard but you'll get it eventually:

i think this is where your understanding of economics fails miserably:

you're using the term "cashing out" by the buyer or HF when someone buys a BJ as some sort of negative for the Bitcoin economy.  you think that it hurts the Bitcoin economy as if that buyer is "giving up" on Bitcoin in general.

nothing is further from the truth.  what's really happening is that BTC is now being allowed to circulate and create positive effects.  you're completely forgetting that there is someone else on the other end of that transaction who "wants" those BTC's, either the cc company or HF, thus creating an offsetting positive for the Bitcoin economy. 

someone always has to hold those BTC; they don't disappear.  whoever is holding them at a given time are typically those who "want" to hold them b/c they are bullish on Bitcoin.

[crumbs]

If there is no difference between the two scenarios, why not let buyers cash out some coin, and buy with their CCs?  The buyers will be happier, while you admit that there is no difference from the BTC economic perspective.

*I can point out that by cashing out BTC, HashFast is not increasing the BTC velocity, it is increasing *the dollar velocity*, but i'm a nice guy

i just told you why; HF "wants" those BTC b/c either:

a.  they think they'll appreciate in value

They're taking out a risk-free loan that they don't need for funding development & production?  They're *investing my BTC?!*  If bitcoin price plummets, they're going to ask for MOAR money?
Haven't we been through this already?

wow, you are sure good at letting your imagination run wild!  FUD

Fud?  But that's exactly what you have suggested.  Unless they are using my pre-order money to fund development and production, in which case they're cashing those coins out to dollars, and it makes no difference what BTC does.  If they're playing the market with my coin, and the price falls, will they be asking me for more money?  

b.  they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company

Then offer direct BTC payment as an option.  Along with CC.  Best of both worlds?

i just told you why they don't accept cc's.  your opinion that they should is just that; your opinion.

I'm replying to your assertion: "they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company"  
If they are indeed worried that it's too inconvenient for their customers to use credit cards, why *disallow* credit card use?  Why not leave the option on the table?  Or are you trying to be too clever?
 

c.  they want to avoid chargeback volatility so as to get a better idea of true demand for their product

You mean to shield themselves from people like you?  Check.  Unfortunately, other ASIC suppliers are accepting CC.  The ones that you duped.  Good going.

this is what ppl like you do when their logic breaks down, they try to make a strawman attack on their opponents character.

I'm not attacking your character, though character is exactly what a spokesman is selling.  And the attack is far from a straw man -- you have regaled us with tales of your credit card daring-do to game those companies.  Well played.

d.  they want to help build the Bitcoin economy by encouraging BTC velocity thru the system

Already answered that one.  See the rest of my posts re: velocity.

the only thing you've answered is that you don't understand monetary velocity.

Please go back and reread my posts.  Slowly.  Learn them by heart.  Knowledge is power, Cypherdoc.

[cypherdoc]

If there is no difference between the two scenarios, why not let buyers cash out some coin, and buy with their CCs?  The buyers will be happier, while you admit that there is no difference from the BTC economic perspective.

*I can point out that by cashing out BTC, HashFast is not increasing the BTC velocity, it is increasing *the dollar velocity*, but i'm a nice guy

i just told you why; HF "wants" those BTC b/c either:

a.  they think they'll appreciate in value

They're taking out a risk-free loan that they don't need for funding development & production?  They're *investing my BTC?!*  If bitcoin price plummets, they're going to ask for MOAR money?
Haven't we been through this already?

wow, you are sure good at letting your imagination run wild!  FUD

Fud?  But that's exactly what you have suggested.  Unless they are using my pre-order money to fund development and production, in which case they're cashing those coins out to dollars, and it makes no difference what BTC does.  If they're playing the market with my coin, and the price falls, will they be asking me for more money?  

b.  they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company

Then offer direct BTC payment as an option.  Along with CC.  Best of both worlds?

i just told you why they don't accept cc's.  your opinion that they should is just that; your opinion.

I'm replying to your assertion: "they think it's easier and more direct for the buyer instead of making them go thru an intermediate step of a cc company"  
If they are indeed worried that it's too inconvenient for their customers to use credit cards, why *disallow* credit card use?  Why not leave the option on the table?  Or are you trying to be too clever?
 

c.  they want to avoid chargeback volatility so as to get a better idea of true demand for their product

You mean to shield themselves from people like you?  Check.  Unfortunately, other ASIC suppliers are accepting CC.  The ones that you duped.  Good going.

this is what ppl like you do when their logic breaks down, they try to make a strawman attack on their opponents character.

I'm not attacking your character, though character is exactly what a spokesman is selling.  And the attack is far from a straw man -- you have regaled us with tales of your credit card daring-do to game those companies.  Well played.

d.  they want to help build the Bitcoin economy by encouraging BTC velocity thru the system

Already answered that one.  See the rest of my posts re: velocity.

the only thing you've answered is that you don't understand monetary velocity.

Please go back and reread my posts.  Slowly.  Learn them by heart.  Knowledge is power, Cypherdoc.

oh crumbs, why are your arguments so crumby? 

here's an example from Wikipedia on monetary velocity:

Illustration

If, for example, in a very small economy, a farmer and a mechanic, with just $50 between them, buy new goods and services from each other in just three transactions over the course of a year

    Farmer spends $50 on tractor repair from mechanic.
    Mechanic buys $40 of corn from farmer.
    Mechanic spends $10 on barn cats from farmer.

then $100 changed hands in the course of a year, even though there is only $50 in this little economy. That $100 level is possible because each dollar was spent on new goods and services an average of twice a year, which is to say that the velocity was 2/yr. Note that if the farmer bought a used tractor from the mechanic or made a gift to the mechanic, it would not go into the numerator of velocity because that transaction would not be part of this tiny economy's gross domestic product.

thus, by HF enabling BTC to move from buyer's hands to HF and then onto another buyer, monetary velocity is increasing.  not only that, it's enabling a new Bitcoin company to establish itself thus once again growing the economy.

lame crumbs, lame.

[crumbs]

...

oh crumbs, why are your arguments so crumby?  

here's an example from Wikipedia on monetary velocity:

Illustration

If, for example, in a very small economy, a farmer and a mechanic, with just $50 between them, buy new goods and services from each other in just three transactions over the course of a year

    Farmer spends $50 on tractor repair from mechanic.
    Mechanic buys $40 of corn from farmer.
    Mechanic spends $10 on barn cats from farmer.

then $100 changed hands in the course of a year, even though there is only $50 in this little economy. That $100 level is possible because each dollar was spent on new goods and services an average of twice a year, which is to say that the velocity was 2/yr. Note that if the farmer bought a used tractor from the mechanic or made a gift to the mechanic, it would not go into the numerator of velocity because that transaction would not be part of this tiny economy's gross domestic product.

thus, by HF enabling BTC to move from buyer's hands to HF and then onto another buyer, monetary velocity is increasing.  not only that, it's enabling a new Bitcoin company to establish itself thus once again growing the economy.

lame crumbs, lame.

Cypherdoc, have you noticed that nowhere in the wikip example do you have an instance of money being exchanged for another currency?  Would you like to guess why that is, or are you going to keep flailing?  

Edit:  When HashFast sells BTC for dollars:

a:  BTC velocity is increased.
b.  Dollar velocity is increased.
c.  HashFast velocity is increased.
d.  None of the above.
e.  All of the above.

[cypherdoc]

...

oh crumbs, why are your arguments so crumby?  

here's an example from Wikipedia on monetary velocity:

Illustration

If, for example, in a very small economy, a farmer and a mechanic, with just $50 between them, buy new goods and services from each other in just three transactions over the course of a year

    Farmer spends $50 on tractor repair from mechanic.
    Mechanic buys $40 of corn from farmer.
    Mechanic spends $10 on barn cats from farmer.

then $100 changed hands in the course of a year, even though there is only $50 in this little economy. That $100 level is possible because each dollar was spent on new goods and services an average of twice a year, which is to say that the velocity was 2/yr. Note that if the farmer bought a used tractor from the mechanic or made a gift to the mechanic, it would not go into the numerator of velocity because that transaction would not be part of this tiny economy's gross domestic product.

thus, by HF enabling BTC to move from buyer's hands to HF and then onto another buyer, monetary velocity is increasing.  not only that, it's enabling a new Bitcoin company to establish itself thus once again growing the economy.

lame crumbs, lame.

Cypherdoc, have you noticed that nowhere in the wikip example do you have an instance of money being exchanged for another currency?  Would you like to guess why that is, or are you going to keep flailing?  

it's irrelevant.  the point is that the BTC movement by itself is enabling a new company to grow, buyers to dishoard to obtain a new machine, and for the Bitcoin economy to grow.  

it also increases demand for BTC in general as they are needed to complete the tx.

end of story.

[crumbs]

...

oh crumbs, why are your arguments so crumby?  

here's an example from Wikipedia on monetary velocity:

Illustration

If, for example, in a very small economy, a farmer and a mechanic, with just $50 between them, buy new goods and services from each other in just three transactions over the course of a year

    Farmer spends $50 on tractor repair from mechanic.
    Mechanic buys $40 of corn from farmer.
    Mechanic spends $10 on barn cats from farmer.

then $100 changed hands in the course of a year, even though there is only $50 in this little economy. That $100 level is possible because each dollar was spent on new goods and services an average of twice a year, which is to say that the velocity was 2/yr. Note that if the farmer bought a used tractor from the mechanic or made a gift to the mechanic, it would not go into the numerator of velocity because that transaction would not be part of this tiny economy's gross domestic product.

thus, by HF enabling BTC to move from buyer's hands to HF and then onto another buyer, monetary velocity is increasing.  not only that, it's enabling a new Bitcoin company to establish itself thus once again growing the economy.

lame crumbs, lame.

Cypherdoc, have you noticed that nowhere in the wikip example do you have an instance of money being exchanged for another currency?  Would you like to guess why that is, or are you going to keep flailing?  

it's irrelevant.  the point is that the BTC movement by itself is enabling a new company to grow, buyers to dishoard to obtain a new machine, and for the Bitcoin economy to grow.  

it also increases demand for BTC in general as they are needed to complete the tx.

end of story.

    Increases the what for what when they have to sell it for dollars???  What happens to prices when market supply is increased?   

UR a lolacoster.  End of story.