HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: up to 800GH/s

[dropt]

It wasn't fraud you say? What was the delivery deadline and when you received your first chips and then when you had your first running board?

They knew in September they were going to receive their first Silicon in November.  It was posted in a Uniquity/HF interview in a random news article.

There's so much garbage out there when it comes to HF so I've been unlucky in finding it again, but it is out there.

[1715362306]

1715362306

[1715362306]

1715362306

[itod]

As per US law, mail order refunds are in US dollars.  Please do not maintain the unreasonable expectation that we're going to break that law.

That's the whole point why you are all scammers @HashFast. You promised in written obligation that all refunds for the bitcoin payments will be in bitcoins. You can't deny this, your company signed under it, copies are all over the internet. Your customer doesn't have to know the law, but you knew right from the beginning you are not going to do it, you are not going to fulfill your written obligation. How do you call when someone signs under the agreement knowing he will never, ever fulfill it? I call it a scam, there's no other name for it.

Keep in mind that few months before your company started collecting payments, another US company (Avalon) issued full refunds to tens of thousand of customers all over the world. All those refunds were in Bitcoin, and that company never, ever had problems with the US legal system for doing that. So you are continuing to lie and scam claiming that something is illegal, which is not.

[cedivad]

They knew in September they were going to receive their first Silicon in November.  It was posted in a Uniquity/HF interview in a random news article.
There's so much garbage out there when it comes to HF so I've been unlucky in finding it again, but it is out there.

I really don't remember it. Are you talking about the "crashing in a wall" article? It's the only one i remember.

Gonna read that again (i have it on my sent emails, quite sure of it).
Posted from asd, ref#FgVV2ZhruU7MVczU

[RoadStress]

It wasn't fraud you say? What was the delivery deadline and when you received your first chips and then when you had your first running board?

They knew in September they were going to receive their first Silicon in November.  It was posted in a Uniquity/HF interview in a random news article.

There's so much garbage out there when it comes to HF so I've been unlucky in finding it again, but it is out there.

And they did received it in November? Can't remember.

[cedivad]

And they did received it in November? Can't remember.

12 of November.
http://hashfast.org/Eduardo_Decastro



The article: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/bitcoin-mining-chips-gear-computing-groups-competition-heats-up#p3


Posted from asd, ref#EnTuB7OFDpKvRHc3

[Syke]

As per US law, mail order refunds are in US dollars.  Please do not maintain the unreasonable expectation that we're going to break that law.

US law does not *require* refunds to be in US dollars. Businesses are free to "barter" for payments of services and products.

[iglasses]

Deleted Post
« Sent to: iglasses on: Today at 03:33:03 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote  Remove this messageDelete 
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
Deleted Post
« Sent to: iglasses on: Today at 09:52:26 AM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote  Remove this messageDelete 
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
Delete my post?  FUCK YOU!!!!

More Pre order bullshit from a CO. sitting on how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of customer hardware that they are %100 hashing with.

Anyone sending them anything is crazy.  They will never deliver that hardware in a reasonable period time.

Keep your BTC

[bkminer]

Previous post quote:

a temporary exchange medium provided as a convenience

As I remember in the beginning HashCrap would ONLY accept bitcion because they had a sorry excuse that they didn't have the payment systems up.  So stop BULLSHITTING about convenience...the only convenience was to put BTC into HashFast's pockets.

[miaviator]

fuck.  I never got my batch 1 baby jet and now your peddling more miners?

[Clobered09]

As per US law, bitcoins are not legal tender and thus you are breaking the law by accepting them.

Hahaha, and here I thought your response to me on the Havelock thread was a funny as someone could get!  Legal tender is an obligation satisfaction concept in the US, it doesn't define the panoply of property you can accept in trade.  You can accept anything you wish as satisfaction of an obligation in the US, so long as it is not expressly prohibited to do so (for instance, most countries would prohibit sex, cocaine, or untaxed alcohol as payment, all the fun stuff), and you can refuse anything you want if you haven't yet incurred the obligation (a store clerk doesn't have to take your $100 in pennies in exchange for those 10 bottles of cheap vodka you want, but if you already bought those bottles on credit with the store, they have to take the $100 in pennies as satisfaction of the debt).  Is there a website somewhere that supplies people with crazy, childish concepts about the law or something?  I don't know where you people get your interpretations. 

[jimmothy]

As per US law, bitcoins are not legal tender and thus you are breaking the law by accepting them.

Hahaha, and here I thought your response to me on the Havelock thread was a funny as someone could get!  Legal tender is an obligation satisfaction concept in the US, it doesn't define the panoply of property you can accept in trade.  You can accept anything you wish as satisfaction of an obligation in the US, so long as it is not expressly prohibited to do so (for instance, most countries would prohibit sex, cocaine, or untaxed alcohol as payment, all the fun stuff), and you can refuse anything you want if you haven't yet incurred the obligation (a store clerk doesn't have to take your $100 in pennies in exchange for those 10 bottles of cheap vodka you want, but if you already bought those bottles on credit with the store, they have to take the $100 in pennies as satisfaction of the debt).  Is there a website somewhere that supplies people with crazy, childish concepts about the law or something?  I don't know where you people get your interpretations. 

Not sure what you have against me but I actually do agree with you.

My point was that hashfast argument that all refunds must be in usd is bogus. Either btc is legal tender and they are obligated to refund full payment amount in btc or it is not legal tender in which case they were breaking the supposed law by accepting btc payments in the first place.

[Clobered09]

As per US law, bitcoins are not legal tender and thus you are breaking the law by accepting them.

Hahaha, and here I thought your response to me on the Havelock thread was a funny as someone could get!  Legal tender is an obligation satisfaction concept in the US, it doesn't define the panoply of property you can accept in trade.  You can accept anything you wish as satisfaction of an obligation in the US, so long as it is not expressly prohibited to do so (for instance, most countries would prohibit sex, cocaine, or untaxed alcohol as payment, all the fun stuff), and you can refuse anything you want if you haven't yet incurred the obligation (a store clerk doesn't have to take your $100 in pennies in exchange for those 10 bottles of cheap vodka you want, but if you already bought those bottles on credit with the store, they have to take the $100 in pennies as satisfaction of the debt).  Is there a website somewhere that supplies people with crazy, childish concepts about the law or something?  I don't know where you people get your interpretations. 

Not sure what you have against me but I actually do agree with you.

My point was that hashfast argument that all refunds must be in usd is bogus. Either btc is legal tender and they are obligated to refund full payment amount in btc or it is not legal tender in which case they were breaking the supposed law by accepting btc payments in the first place.

Your weird defenses of your claim that Havelock is an have been a registered exchange in Panama are what I was laughing at.  I was just going through your posts, I didn't really look at Hashfasts argument.  S/he's certainly wrong that refunds MUST be in USD, but it's also not true that they are obligated to refund in btc, or at least not completely true.  They have two choices in the US (this actually varies by state, but most have adopted the relevant provisions of the UCC, so it's pretty much the same), they can refund in the medium that was provided (btc), or they can refund the USD equivalent market value of the medium at the time of tender.  The time of tender is the time at which the obligee (that's you) is in a position to accept or reject what the obligor has offered in satisfaction.  In other words, they either have to give you back the btc, or give you back the USD at current market value.  They don't get back-date.

[smoothie]

Most of the points about refunds in BTC, MPP, and delays are not being addressed by OP.

What a pathetic scammer supporter. Good job! 

[jimmothy]

As per US law, bitcoins are not legal tender and thus you are breaking the law by accepting them.

Hahaha, and here I thought your response to me on the Havelock thread was a funny as someone could get!  Legal tender is an obligation satisfaction concept in the US, it doesn't define the panoply of property you can accept in trade.  You can accept anything you wish as satisfaction of an obligation in the US, so long as it is not expressly prohibited to do so (for instance, most countries would prohibit sex, cocaine, or untaxed alcohol as payment, all the fun stuff), and you can refuse anything you want if you haven't yet incurred the obligation (a store clerk doesn't have to take your $100 in pennies in exchange for those 10 bottles of cheap vodka you want, but if you already bought those bottles on credit with the store, they have to take the $100 in pennies as satisfaction of the debt).  Is there a website somewhere that supplies people with crazy, childish concepts about the law or something?  I don't know where you people get your interpretations. 

Not sure what you have against me but I actually do agree with you.

My point was that hashfast argument that all refunds must be in usd is bogus. Either btc is legal tender and they are obligated to refund full payment amount in btc or it is not legal tender in which case they were breaking the supposed law by accepting btc payments in the first place.

Your weird defenses of your claim that Havelock is an have been a registered exchange in Panama are what I was laughing at.  I was just going through your posts, I didn't really look at Hashfasts argument.  S/he's certainly wrong that refunds MUST be in USD, but it's also not true that they are obligated to refund in btc, or at least not completely true.  They have two choices in the US (this actually varies by state, but most have adopted the relevant provisions of the UCC, so it's pretty much the same), they can refund in the medium that was provided (btc), or they can refund the USD equivalent market value of the medium at the time of tender.  The time of tender is the time at which the obligee (that's you) is in a position to accept or reject what the obligor has offered in satisfaction.  In other words, they either have to give you back the btc, or give you back the USD at current market value.  They don't get back-date.

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

[Clobered09]

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

[jimmothy]

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

It is no doubt a complicated legal situation. However the fact that HF promised full btc refunds and changed their mind later when the value of btc went up is without a doubt bullshit. Considering many people only ordered with hashfast because of these terms along with a supposed guaranteed refund if delays extended past dec 31 which they did.

I doubt that the US law protects btc consumers from this type of BS even though some have apparently sued BFL for their btc and won(although don't think they collected)

[Clobered09]

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

It is no doubt a complicated legal situation. However the fact that HF promised full btc refunds and changed their mind later when the value of btc went up is without a doubt bullshit. Considering many people only ordered with hashfast because of these terms along with a supposed guaranteed refund if delays extended past dec 31 which they did.

I doubt that the US law protects btc consumers from this type of BS even though some have apparently sued BFL for their btc and won(although don't think they collected)

It's definitely bullshit, and that's why the law doesn't let them say "we're paying you USD value from when you first gave us the btc."  They have to pay at the current USD market value for btc if they're going to pay in USD.

[jimmothy]

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

It is no doubt a complicated legal situation. However the fact that HF promised full btc refunds and changed their mind later when the value of btc went up is without a doubt bullshit. Considering many people only ordered with hashfast because of these terms along with a supposed guaranteed refund if delays extended past dec 31 which they did.

I doubt that the US law protects btc consumers from this type of BS even though some have apparently sued BFL for their btc and won(although don't think they collected)

It's definitely bullshit, and that's why the law doesn't let them say "we're paying you USD value from when you first gave us the btc."  They have to pay at the current USD market value for btc if they're going to pay in USD.

Could you point me to where the law says this?

I still think one could make a good argument for their original btc amount. If someone paid in euros and the value of euros against usd increased would they not still be entitled to a full refund of original amount of euros even if specifically stated in the contract?

[cedivad]

If HF_CL fails at calming down the community newly created accounts of people knowing the law better than our lawyers arrive to the rescue.
Posted from asd, ref#NN3YE2pVR8l1X4iz

[itod]

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

The key concept is bolded, parties agreed otherwise by accepting the HashFast TOS. In that TOS HashFast written themselves the obligation to refund in BTC. How can this be illegal? Why Avalon (US registered company) was not prosecuted for refunding in BTC?