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

[cedivad]

Thanks for having decided to delete my repost #13, after that i pointed that out. #14 incoming.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #tOLtoJ55FL1qjc3y

[1714052531]

1714052531

[1714052531]

1714052531

[Syke]

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.

Ah, you found a new term in the dictionary, "buyer's remorse". Another nice term that has absolutely no bearing on this case. HashFast promised full BTC refunds if they were late. Need me to post proof again? The customer is entitled to a full BTC refund, for any reason, because HashFast failed to deliver on time.

[HashFast_CL]

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

Yes, 3 months is a relatively long period of BTC/USD stability.

The $100-$120 range was in effect for eons of Bitcoin Time.   

There was no way to predict (unless you're cypherdoc) those bounds would be broken on a spike to $1200 and retrace to $600.

[gmaxwell]

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

It has absolutely nothing to do with the appreciation of Bitcoin. Your company advertised an October 20th delivery, and claimed to be "on time" until just before you missed that target— now it seems like you were just committing fraud at that point considering you didn't even have the chips until months later. I paid you roughly 5x per GH/s what your competition was charging specifically because you assured me that by doing business with you I wouldn't end up with substantially fewer coins than I started with as a result of delays or failure on your part. You assured this in several layered ways, including a promise of a full refund in the case that you had massively failed to deliver— which turned out to be the case. That promise required holding or hedging and was worth a premium. Because of these assurances I took a risk in doing business with you, and even if you do ultimately make good on your contract I will still be at a significant loss in terms of time, stress, exposure to fraud risk from you, and loss of use of those funds for seven months.

I'm perfectly happy with the actual purchase I made— with the ink on the paper and the terms of the agreement. My only regret is that paper is nearly worthless when the counterpart is a con-artist. To emphasize this further, I'd also be happy to receive the hardware plus the Bitcoin it would have mined had you delivered it on your advertised date. That I haven't been demanding that instead is because it's somewhat more than the full refund which was my "only recourse" according to our agreement, unlike you I'm willing to stick to the actual agreement even when it's a loss to me. Hell, I was prepared to accept— according to our agreement— the hardware plus full MPP and what it would have mined starting on your massively late deadline date of December 31st, though that would be a loss to me. In my first certified letter I proposed an alternative negotiation which would have allowed you to refund me in additional hardware (with a formula for the amount based on when you sent it), specifically because if you did something massive stupid and didn't hold/hedge I didn't want to put you out of business— for the same reason that you're getting forum posts from me and not a process server banging on your door. I'm willing to negotiate and even consider alternatives that leave me somewhat worse off than our agreed terms, because I think business should result in mutually beneficial results. Sadly, you've ignored my letters. What I will not accept is taking a complete bath while _you_ take a windfall, in violation of our contract, nor will I accept a "settlement" that leaves me defrauded while prohibiting me from telling others.

[HashFast_CL]

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.

Ah, you found a new term in the dictionary, "buyer's remorse". Another nice term that has absolutely no bearing on this case. HashFast promised full BTC refunds if they were late. Need me to post proof again? The customer is entitled to a full BTC refund, for any reason, because HashFast failed to deliver on time.

"Buyer's remorse" is not a new term in the dictionary; in fact it's very old, well known, and has everything to do with this case (wherein reasonable understanding of context is studiously ignored because it precludes grants of outlandish windfalls).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer%27s_remorse

Buyer's remorse is the sense of regret after having made a purchase. It is frequently associated with the purchase of an expensive item such as a car or house. It may stem from fear of making the wrong choice, guilt over extravagance, or a suspicion of having been overly influenced by the seller.

Buyer's remorse is thought to stem from cognitive dissonance, specifically post-decision dissonance, that arises when a person must make a difficult decision, such as a heavily invested purchase between two similarly appealing alternatives. Factors that affect buyer's remorse include resources invested, the involvement of the purchaser, whether the purchase is compatible with the purchaser's goals, and what positive or negative evidence the purchaser encounters post-purchase that confirms or denies the purchase as a good idea.

That is the psychological side; it's economic counterpart is called 'opportunity cost'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a choice is the value of the best alternative forgone, in a situation in which a choice needs to be made between several mutually exclusive alternatives given limited resources. Assuming the best choice is made, it is the "cost" incurred by not enjoying the benefit that would be had by taking the second best choice available.

The New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen".

HashFast, or any other merchant of any other good or service, is not responsible for the opportunity cost incurred by a customer.

[jimmothy]

Why did you promise full btc refunds if either:

a. You don't understand the volatility of bitcoin

or

b. You don't hold all btc payments in full in case of refunds.

[dropt]

HashFast, or any other merchant of any other good or service, is not responsible for the opportunity cost incurred by a customer.

No, but you are responsible for living up to the terms of sale that you and your customers agreed to.

[Micky25]

squirming around the truth like a dying worm. I give you a pound of rice, you owe me a pound of rice. Oldest principle of the world.

[Syke]

"Buyer's remorse" is not a new term in the dictionary; in fact it's very old, well known, and has everything to do with this case (wherein reasonable understanding of context is studiously ignored because it precludes grants of outlandish windfalls).

I know you want that to be true because HashFast screwed up so badly, but it's not true. HashFast promised full BTC refunds for any reason if they were late. They were late, therefore they must offer full BTC refunds. Look up classic "if...then..." logic to understand fully what's going on.

[cedivad]

Reposts #17: (thanks HF_CL, i don't even need to clear the clipboard, it's already there)

No I won't because it won't go anywhere. The complaint triggered a letter to HF to see if the complaint could be resolved between company and HF. Because HF went the legal route that option is now off the table. The Department of Justice in the State of California is prohibited by law from representing individual citizen's legal interests in civil matters.

They will retain my customer complaint and the response on behalf of HF by Zuber Lawler & Del Duca in case legal action is taken against HF by their office in the future. In that case the complaint can be used as evidentiary material and provide vital documentation for use on behalf of California consumer's interests.

You were supposed to deliver devices IN TIME. Devices which were supposed to mine back the BTC invested in them to the least.
Actually, given the risks someone takes with investing in ASICs, your devices should have a HIGH chance of mining back the BTC invested in the devices PLUS some extra for the risks taken.

There is no doubt that the BTC price shooting up while you were producing your ASICs would tempt a lot of manufacturers to pretend there being difficulties postponing the delivery while they are mining on the devices produced themselves while manufacturing the next batch for their customers which they again will use to mine themselves if it is too profitable still and postpone the delivery again.

Not saying you did that... or am I?


Are you seriously telling people to be happy to get a 10k USD refund for their 100 btc investment, when if they did not invest in your fucked up company they would have 65k USD worth now in BTC?

F U seriously

If cedivad mentions his lawyer *and* boasts about his overweening absolute confidence in a court victory, you take two shots.

Court? You are such an ignorant. The contract you forced us into says arbitration. It's Morici that will bring you in court and win.

Don't worry -  i will be there with kilograms of popcorns. Yeah, kilograms, you know what a kilogram is, right? It's one thousand grams.

So you confirm this email exchange is legitimate?

I will take it as so.

"Forced?"  Who "forced" you into the ToS?  AFAIK they were entirely voluntary and you were free to agree or disagree to comply with them.

Yes, forced. It's a forced arbitration clause.

Do you want to talk about the fact that you are denying the very existence of the early versions of your contract?
Or do you prefer to talk about the 3 days or so where your Terms of Sales were offline when you opened sales again for your new fantastic EVO?

And since that you keep removing the link (what a poor tactic); you can read this full thread by replacing "bitcointalk.org" with "bitcointa.lk" on this URL.

4) Are terms of sale binding at the time of sale?  Or can you guys retroactively change them?

They recently added a new term to the ToS, if i understood it correctly they can change them retroactively now.


Dear HashFast_CL,

Do you really believe that you are gonna get yourself out of your LIES with such a poor misunderstanding of what the Bitcoin community believes in?
Here is a screenshoot of my Skype conversation with your marketing director and executive John S.
Please read "we only care about our losses, that are not measured in USD".
It was first posted in this board back in October, when no-on would have expected the price to rise as it did.
Moreover, you promised BTC refunds. If you didn't intended to, you shouldn't have LIED to us.

Conversation: https://i.imgur.com/XLQIa1g.png

Also quoting this post as another reference to prove the relation between HashFast (the company) and HashFast_CL:

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.

(don't worry HF_CL, this is not the first time that you fall for things like this, and i've already saved all of the others).
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #tBRPDR5N1M2yXRTy

[seriouscoin]

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!   

But if BTC crashes to $10, you would happily refund the original BTC amount right?

What a piece of shit that you are. I pray to god your family dies due to horrific disease

[HashFast_CL]

Why did you promise full btc refunds if either:

a. You don't understand the volatility of bitcoin

or

b. You don't hold all btc payments in full in case of refunds.

If HashFast had enough resources to build your machine without your money, we would have simply kept the machines for ourselves and not taken the unnecessary (and risky) step of involving customers.

"Full BTC refunds" means a full refund of the price (which is always denominated in USD) via the exchange medium of BTC.

Unfortunately, the decision of a few disgruntled customers to lawyer up and go the legal route forced HashFast to issue refunds solely in USD.

[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!   

But if BTC crashes to $10, you would happily refund the original BTC amount right?

What a piece of shit that you are. I pray to god your family dies due to horrific disease

US law requires a full refund in US dollars.  That's been very clear all along.

If BTC crashed to $10, you could have taken your legally required 100% USD refund and bought loads more BTC.  Sorry, but that didn't happen.

[cedivad]

If HashFast had enough resources to build your machine without your money, we would have simply kept the machines for ourselves and not taken the unnecess

"Full BTC refunds" means a full refund of the price (which is always denominated in USD) via the exchange medium of BTC.

Unfortunately, the decision of a few disgruntled customers to lawyer up and go the legal route forced HashFast to issue refunds solely in USD.

You just gave me material for another few paragraphs of my wiki,

Thanks.
Posted from Bitcointa.lk - #GvaaYGQDaKX161rm

[yxt]

@HashFast_CL

stop your PR chitchat and post an update on shipping ETA

[Syke]

"Full BTC refunds" means a full refund of the price (which is always denominated in USD) via the exchange medium of BTC.

Nope. Read carefully.

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.

[SolarSilver]

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

If you are open and honest about all this stuff, can you explain why in the last 6 weeks you have not shipped any of the MPP owed on the BBJets? Or the Upgrade kits? Or the Sierras? Or the MPP of the Sierras

None of these pre-ordered and pre-paid items have been shipped

Why?

what is holding you back?

[midnightmagic]

If HashFast had enough resources to build your machine without your money, we would have simply kept the machines for ourselves and not taken the unnecessary (and risky) step of involving customers.

"Full BTC refunds" means a full refund of the price (which is always denominated in USD) via the exchange medium of BTC.

Unfortunately, the decision of a few disgruntled customers to lawyer up and go the legal route forced HashFast to issue refunds solely in USD.

So when you sent me my fiat-denominated cheque, but sent me less than what I paid in fiat how does this fit in with your insistence that we're getting a full USD-denominated refund?

[ninjarobot]

That's a textbook case of buyer's scammers remorse.  I know how it feels bro.  

If HashFast had enough resources to build your machine without your money, we would have simply kept the machines for ourselves and not taken the unnecessary (and risky) step of involving customers investors.

FTFY

[HashFast_CL]

"Full BTC refunds" means a full refund of the price (which is always denominated in USD) via the exchange medium of BTC.

Nope. Read carefully.

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.

Listen carefully because repeating this is tiresome:

A statement based on and made during a long period of BTC/USD stability cannnot reasonably expected to be maintained given a huge, unexpected spike in the exchange rate.

Are you familiar with the concept of 'reducio ad absurdum?"

It means that if your argument leads to an absurd conclusion, it is false.

IE:  If BTC went to a million, your assumptions would lead to the absurd conclusion that HashFast owes gmaxwell $98,000,000.

Nothing in the ToS indicates HashFast has unlimited liability for BTC/USD exchange rate fluctuations.

No court or arbitrator will ignore the principle of equity in favor of construing the ToS to require infinite risk for HashFast.

Only the self-interested intentional delusions of the greedy, windfall-seeking plaintiffs would make such a ridiculous case.