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

[HashFast_CL]

HashFast already offered and paid out 105% refunds.

Offered and paid out?  What are you talking about? You have absolutely not refunded me. I wish it were so, I certainly do not enjoy the current state of affairs.

You already admitted to receiving and returning a check for 105% of the purchase price.

If you really think a court is actually going to give you a $60,000 pony named Windfall, get a lawyer.

But you know that's absurd, which is why you've not done so.

Anyway, please ask cedivad and the others to stop edit-warring moderated posts.

If you won't enforce your own rules for this subforum, maybe it's time to step down and let someone more capable take over.

EDIT: Because cedivad is being allowed to break the rules for self-moderated threads, I'll simply lock this one when he is online until the mods give him a warning/time-out/banhammer.

[HashFast_CL]

Once again, the only reason this thread is locked is because cedavid and others are spamming it.

This is a clear violation of the message they get ever time I delete their hate/rage/troll posts.

If the mods would simply enforce the rules for this subforum, it wouldn't be a problem.  But they don't, so it is.

Sorry to all who wish to post here!

[gmaxwell]

So, just to be completely clear— You are, in fact, refusing to refund my payment?

I want to be complete clear on this because you have ignored every certified letter I (and apparently other people have sent you) and you seem to also be saying that you already have— which is entirely untrue. You have not refunded me in any way shape or form, the only response I've received from you at all has been the taunting, insults, and deletion notices here— plus some crazy settlement for a fraction of what I'm out due to your incompetent or deceptive business practices: I am beginning to lean towards deceptive considering your apparent complete lack of interest in seeking a mutually agreeable resolution.

You continue to have an obligation according to our contract to refund my payment after your failure to deliver by the very lenient deadline which you specified. You have ignored all my private efforts to resolve the matter and not responded to any of my communication except here in public. Obviously very few people are going to do business with you with you screwing over people like this. You've claimed that your new pre-orders were flying off the virtual shelves— and maybe there really are enough suckers out there— but I'd guess if you actually were selling product you'd actually be able to make more deliveries and refund some of the people you've screwed over and left completely in the lurch.

[HashFast_CL]

So, just to be completely clear— You are, in fact, refusing to refund my payment?

I want to be complete clear on this because you have ignored every certified letter I (and apparently other people have sent you) and you seem to also be saying that you already have— which is entirely untrue. You have not refunded me in any way shape or form, the only response I've received from you at all has been the taunting, insults, and deletion notices here— plus some crazy settlement for a fraction of what I'm out due to your incompetent or deceptive business practices: I am beginning to lean towards deceptive considering your apparent complete lack of interest in seeking a mutually agreeable resolution.

You continue to have an obligation according to our contract to refund my payment after your failure to deliver by the very lenient deadline which you specified. You have ignored all my private efforts to resolve the matter and not responded to any of my communication except here in public. Obviously very few people are going to do business with you with you screwing over people like this. You've claimed that your new pre-orders were flying off the virtual shelves— and maybe there really are enough suckers out there— but I'd guess if you actually were selling product you'd actually be able to make more deliveries and refund some of the people you've screwed over and left completely in the lurch.

Let me be completely clear: HashFast sent you a 105% refund, which you admit to returning because you feel entitled to a ~600% windfall based on nothing more than post-purchase appreciation of your chosen payment medium.

You aren't going to get a windfall, no matter how long you pretend to be incapable of understanding the concept of Legal Tender.  You know this is true, which explains your failure to get a lawyer.  Good job wasting taxpayer money by going the legal route via a complaint to the state of California.   

I see you used your moderator powers to unlock the thread and have the last word.  Very nice; did you also use your mod powers to ask cedivad to stop spamming us with re-posts?  Your own rules say edit-warring moderated threads is not acceptable...

[midnightmagic]

It would have been nice to have received 105% of your evaluation of the refund total; instead, by HashFast math I am out somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20%–even denominated in the fiat-based refund you illegally attempted to change our contract to.

[HashFast_CL]

cedivad is offline so the thread is now unlocked.

The reason for introducing the legal concept of a 'windfall' is so observers will not be mislead by those falsely claiming HashFast hasn't provided full refunds for the small number of Batch 1 customers who requested them.

It's important to note the distinction between a full 105% refund of the USD our machines have always been priced in versus a windfall (in the form of getting back an equal number of ~$600 BTC for the ~$100 BTC which some customers used to buy ASICs).

HashFast has been open and honest regarding the technical reasons for the delay.

Others have been deceitful and dishonest by trying to use the delay as an excuse to demand a windfall.  Some go so far as to make up lies about HashFast intentionally delaying shipments so we may mine with customer equipment!

Their attempts to disrupt this thread and drive away business, just because they have not been granted a windfall at HashFast's expense, amount to extortion.

[Micky25]

disrupt this thread and drive away business.

what kind of business are you talking about? I'm still waiting for goods I ordered and paid for in September 2013. What kind of business is this? Bullshit business?

[yxt]

... to ask cedivad to stop spamming us with re-posts?  Your own rules say edit-warring moderated threads is not acceptable...

you scammed much people here and now complaining about they spamming your thread because you go silence and nobody know
when/if you ship something
seriously?

HashFast has been open and honest regarding the technical reasons for the delay.

bullshit!

You are behind your deadline and I have NO info if/when you will ship my units.

stop your PR chitchat and post an update on shipping ETA

[cedivad]

Btw, if you don't see me online it's just because the user experience on Bitcointa.lk is just way better than the one on Bitcointalk.org. And yes, i took a pause, i admit it.

Btw #2, i really don't care if you lock the thread and you try to turn the community against me because i'm supposedly "responsable" for it.

Good luck with that.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #6y4hADKWFSclmeI7

[Syke]

cedivad is offline so the thread is now unlocked.

The reason for introducing the legal concept of a 'windfall' is so observers will not be mislead by those falsely claiming HashFast hasn't provided full refunds for the small number of Batch 1 customers who requested them.

Doesn't matter if you call it a "windfall" or not, BTC refunds for BTC purchases were the original agreement by HashFast:

Received: by 10.194.138.199 with SMTP id qs7csp90853wjb;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.236.45.102 with SMTP id o66mr196684yhb.13.1376696316262;
        Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:38:36 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <bitpaysupport@hashfast.com>

Hi Jim,
Thank you so much for your patience while I got the answer for you, I greatly appreciate it.

The answer is if you buy Baby Jet for 51 BitCoins today and it does not ship, you will be refunded the 51 BitCoins you paid.

I hope that helps and hope you have a good weekend!

Thanks,
Cara

[HashFast_CL]

Btw, if you don't see me online it's just because the user experience on Bitcointa.lk is just way better than the one on Bitcointalk.org. And yes, i took a pause, i admit it.

Btw #2, i really don't care if you lock the thread and you try to turn the community against me because i'm supposedly "responsable" for it.

Good luck with that.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #6y4hADKWFSclmeI7

Thank you for cutting out the spam.

I'm not trying to "turn the community against" you, although one could make the case you are trying to exactly that to HashFast.

Drumming up support for a lawsuit, then complaining HashFast 'chose to go the legal route' is a little obnoxious though...  

[HashFast_CL]

cedivad is offline so the thread is now unlocked.

The reason for introducing the legal concept of a 'windfall' is so observers will not be mislead by those falsely claiming HashFast hasn't provided full refunds for the small number of Batch 1 customers who requested them.

Doesn't matter if you call it a "windfall" or not, BTC refunds for BTC purchases were the original agreement by HashFast

That's correct; it doesn't matter if *I* call it a 'windfall' or not.

What matters is if a judge or mediator calls it a 'windfall' or not.

The legally binding language is in the ToS, not a statement made prior to the sudden and rapid appreciation of BTC from $100 to $600, during a long period of BTC/USD stability.

Query: If BTC went to $1,000,000 would you still expect HashFast to pay out millions of dollars in windfall refunds?

If you answer is 'yes' you may want to check the validity of your premises, because they have led you to an absurd conclusion!   

[Syke]

The legally binding language is in the ToS, not a statement made prior to the sudden and rapid appreciation of BTC from $100 to $600, during a long period of BTC/USD stability.

So what you're saying is, HashFast representatives lie when necessary to protect the company. Gotcha.

[gmaxwell]

Let me be completely clear: HashFast sent you a 105% refund, which you admit to returning because you feel entitled to a ~600% windfall based on nothing more than post-purchase appreciation of your chosen payment medium.

You sent me a check which was clearly labeled as a _settlement_ for about 10% of the value you owed me and contained a long list of burdensome conditions, such as that I couldn't tell other people how much you screwed me over. I don't believe I could ethical accept terms like that, nor should I especially for such an enormous loss.  You sold me a machine to mine bitcoin and then you failed to deliver. As a result I lost most of my purchase price— and at the moment all of my purchase price because you refuse to refund and instead  

You know this is true, which explains your failure to get a lawyer. Good job wasting taxpayer money by going the legal route via a complaint to the state of California.   

You again prove that you're not actually reading the certified letters arriving, I have an attorney. I also have not complained to the state of California, though I suppose I probably should do that as well— especially now that you've made it clear with your consistent direct lying as you're doing here that you aren't operating your business in good faith.

I see you used your moderator powers to unlock the thread and have the last word.  Very nice; did you also use your mod powers to ask cedivad to stop spamming us with re-posts?  Your own rules say edit-warring moderated threads is not acceptable...

I didn't unlock the thread. Your locking of it, however generated a number of moderator reports, so I presume someone did it.  SOP around here is that we do unlock threads when scamming vendors try to use locking to suppress people from discussing their fraud.

And please, you think I'm about to lift a finger to help you after you've fucked me over like this and behaved in such an unprofessional manner? The fact that I'm disinclined to apply the full power available to me against you should in no way be interpreted as suggesting that I think I owe you anything. I already gave you every kindness by attempting to resolve your default for three months in private before blasting you in public— attempts seem to have been completely ignored.  You always have the option of going away or convincing some other moderator who you haven't defrauded and deprived of 98 BTC. I've asked people to not repost the same stuff and to keep their posts related to their concerns that your new product (such as concerns that it will not be delivered or perform to specification based on your past and continuing dishonest and unethical business conduct), but beyond that as far as I'm concerned you can pound sand...

[Micky25]

lets put the breakwind topic aside for a moment. What news about shipping?

As you might be aware, one of your bosses mentioned something about 'timing is everything in asic business' or so some months ago.

[HashFast_CL]

The legally binding language is in the ToS, not a statement made prior to the sudden and rapid appreciation of BTC from $100 to $600, during a long period of BTC/USD stability.

So what you're saying is, HashFast representatives lie when necessary to protect the company. Gotcha.

No, I never said that.

Are you saying that HashFast should have to pay out billions of USD refunds, if BTC went to a million dollars each?

If you are (as appears to be the case) please check your assumptions, because they have lead you to an unreasonable and obviously silly conclusion.

[gmaxwell]

Query: If BTC went to $1,000,000 would you still expect HashFast to pay out millions of dollars in windfall refunds?

Sure. Everyone expected you to comply with your promises and to have held or hedged the Bitcoins you collected in order to do so, the talk about investors certainly created that impression, and the very reason we asked about the refunds was specifically because of that case and the reason that we still purchased your hardware at 4-5x the cost per GH of your competition at the time was because of assurances like that.

It's a very easy scam that others are believed to have performed in the past: Collect a bunch of pre-order money. If BTC goes up a lot 'refund' a bunch of people USD. If it goes down, either go ahead and ship a product to everyone or try to refund in BTC.

The fact that you also forcefully "refunded" fractional amounts in USD denominated terms in violation of the contract to many early customers without them ever asking for a refund makes a lot of people believe you are engaging in this fraudulently behavior and that perhaps you company intended to do so all along.

There is no windfall here. I started with X Bitcoin. You sold me a machine to mine Bitcoin for those X Bitcoin scheduled for late october whos value you would almost certainly rapidly decrease and would have been rather close to only breaking even— mining back just X Bitcoin— if you shipped on time and would become worthless if you were late. Your contract allowed you to be up to two months late with no recourse, which would have made my purchase into a substantial loss. To prevent a total loss your contract guaranteed a cancellation and full refund if you were later than that. You were— shipping to apparently a fraction of customers three months after your advertised date and almost one month after your own self-set deadline.

Few sane would spend X bitcoins to purchase hardware which would only ever mine 0.1*X bitcoins, they certainly wouldn't do so at 5x the cost of the competition. Your company was abundantly clear on this and because of it some of us purchased, because while we saw how other companies exploited ambiguity we didn't expect to get ripped off by someone overtly violating their agreement.

Part of how you managed to gain sales originally was by convincing people your company understood the business of mining. It's ironic now how you insist on not understanding it— arguing that people should be happy to pay X bitcoin to buy hardware that earns a tiny fraction back when doing so is essential for your mindblowing claim that everyone's understanding all along was that you planned on refunding the full amount paid regardless of (and specifically due to) BTC price changes in the face of the fact that your founders and support staff clarified this point in the clearest possible terms several times in public and in private. Do you expect that people will want to buy your new mining boards from a company that now insists that it doesn't understand mining?

[cedivad]

Drumming up support for a lawsuit, then complaining HashFast 'chose to go the legal route' is a little obnoxious though...   

Did I?

I didn't cut the spam, it's just that you finally decided to keep the "repost #13". Wise decision. You are growing.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #goOcdfdw05C8MTHt

[HashFast_CL]

Let me be completely clear: HashFast sent you a 105% refund, which you admit to returning because you feel entitled to a ~600% windfall based on nothing more than post-purchase appreciation of your chosen payment medium.

You sent me a check which was clearly labeled as a _settlement_ for about 10% of the value you owed me and contained a long list of burdensome conditions, such as that I couldn't tell other people how much you screwed me over. I don't believe I could ethical accept terms like that, nor should I especially for such an enormous loss.  You sold me a machine to mine bitcoin and then you failed to deliver. As a result I lost most of my purchase price— and at the moment all of my purchase price because you refuse to refund and instead  

You know this is true, which explains your failure to get a lawyer. Good job wasting taxpayer money by going the legal route via a complaint to the state of California.   

You again prove that you're not actually reading the certified letters arriving, I have an attorney. I also have not complained to the state of California, though I suppose I probably should do that as well— especially now that you've made it clear with your consistent direct lying as you're doing here that you aren't operating your business in good faith.

I see you used your moderator powers to unlock the thread and have the last word.  Very nice; did you also use your mod powers to ask cedivad to stop spamming us with re-posts?  Your own rules say edit-warring moderated threads is not acceptable...

I didn't unlock the thread. Your locking of it, however generated a number of moderator reports, so I presume someone did it.  SOP around here is that we do unlock threads when scamming vendors try to use locking to suppress people from discussing their fraud.

And please, you think I'm about to lift a finger to help you after you've fucked me over like this and behaved in such an unprofessional manner? The fact that I'm disinclined to apply the full power available to me against you should in no way be interpreted as suggesting that I think I owe you anything. I already gave you every kindness by attempting to resolve your default for three months in private before blasting you in public— attempts seem to have been completely ignored.  You always have the option of going away or convincing some other moderator who you haven't defrauded and deprived of 98 BTC. I've asked people to not repost the same stuff and to keep their posts related to their concerns that your new product (such as concerns that it will not be delivered or perform to specification based on your past and continuing dishonest and unethical business conduct), but beyond that as far as I'm concerned you can pound sand...

You are not going to get a $65,000 refund for a product you only paid $12,000 for.

You voluntarily chose to spend your 98 BTC and now regret it because of post-purchase appreciation.  

That's a textbook case of buyer's remorse.  I know how it feels bro.  It feels bad, but the correct course of action is to get over it and learn a lesson, not throw a raging fit in public.

Also, if VE and Crumbs can be banned from the self-moderated Activemining thread, cedivad should behave himself here or be shown the door.

[cedivad]

during a long period of BTC/USD stability.

The statement was made in August and the market crashed from 250$ in April... so 3 months is a long period of BTC/USD stability?

Thanks for the gem.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #TFLFPqSAud9iABEP