BFL Experience

[YipYip]

Like is said though how could we possibly prove that BFL is mining on EMC?

They've already admitted to it. It's in the court record, straight from BFL's lawyer.

Fair enough. I know they own EMC, that's pretty publicly known. I've not read any of the court stuff.

Seems like a huge mess to me! I feel sorry for everyone involved on both sides.

You feel sorry for the CUNTS who have created this living nightmare...who the fuck are you Mahatma Ghandi !!!

[1715068993]

1715068993

[1715068993]

1715068993

[Bicknellski]

Like is said though how could we possibly prove that BFL is mining on EMC?

They've already admitted to it. It's in the court record, straight from BFL's lawyer.

Fair enough. I know they own EMC, that's pretty publicly known. I've not read any of the court stuff.

Seems like a huge mess to me! I feel sorry for everyone involved on both sides.

You feel sorry for the CUNTS who have created this living nightmare...who the fuck are you Mahatma Ghandi !!!

This is why you should not feel sorry for BFL.

Transcript Pages 89-92 of the Probation Hearing against Sonny V.

Q. Okay. And so in both circumstances, of the house and the loan, it was customers' money that went to Mr. Vleisides buying his house that he lives in, and to loan him and other share holders money; right? Because of this prepaid model?

A. It was certainly money that customers deposited, you know, with the company to purchase their products. I'm not entirely sure at which point legal entitlement to the money passes from the customer to the -- to the company. But the -- the money that any company uses, if it's not borrowed or put in by investors comes from its customers. In this case it all came from the customers.

Q. Now, should people who have company credit cards use themfor personal expenses?

A. They should not.

Q. All right. And so does that continue on, do you know,by -- by Mr. Vleisides?

A. I -- I will say that it probably has continued.

Q. All right. Are there other employees, in particular Mr. Vleisides' mother, who has a company credit card that makes personal purchases on?

A. There are other company emp -- there are other company employees who -- you know, the only one I've looked at closely is Mr. Vleisides because of this issue. There are other company employees who have company credit cards. I do notknow whether Mr. Vleisides' mother has a company credit card.

Maybe we should ask Josh how he uses his company Diner's Club card? Maybe they pay for meals for BCP and PG when they are in town I am sure that your pre-order money is well spend lavishing food and trinkets on those who would shill for BFL right? I don't think any BFL customers would be happy to learn personal expenses are the norm for employees with credit cards.

[Unacceptable]

Like is said though how could we possibly prove that BFL is mining on EMC?

They've already admitted to it. It's in the court record, straight from BFL's lawyer.

Fair enough. I know they own EMC, that's pretty publicly known. I've not read any of the court stuff.

Seems like a huge mess to me! I feel sorry for everyone involved on both sides.

You feel sorry for the CUNTS who have created this living nightmare...who the fuck are you Mahatma Ghandi !!!

This is why you should not feel sorry for BFL.

Transcript Pages 89-92 of the Probation Hearing against Sonny V.

Q. Okay. And so in both circumstances, of the house and the loan, it was customers' money that went to Mr. Vleisides buying his house that he lives in, and to loan him and other share holders money; right? Because of this prepaid model?

A. It was certainly money that customers deposited, you know, with the company to purchase their products. I'm not entirely sure at which point legal entitlement to the money passes from the customer to the -- to the company. But the -- the money that any company uses, if it's not borrowed or put in by investors comes from its customers. In this case it all came from the customers.

Q. Now, should people who have company credit cards use themfor personal expenses?

A. They should not.

Q. All right. And so does that continue on, do you know,by -- by Mr. Vleisides?

A. I -- I will say that it probably has continued.

Q. All right. Are there other employees, in particular Mr. Vleisides' mother, who has a company credit card that makes personal purchases on?

A. There are other company emp -- there are other company employees who -- you know, the only one I've looked at closely is Mr. Vleisides because of this issue. There are other company employees who have company credit cards. I do notknow whether Mr. Vleisides' mother has a company credit card.

Maybe we should ask Josh how he uses his company Diner's Club card? Maybe they pay for meals for BCP and PG when they are in town I am sure that your pre-order money is well spend lavishing food and trinkets on those who would shill for BFL right? I don't think any BFL customers would be happy to learn personal expenses are the norm for employees with credit cards.

How do expect employees to live the "highlife" without a company credit card   You think they all make thousands of dollars a week to afford such expenses

Live it up BFL!!! The end is near!!!! 

[lowbander80]

My experience started with a Jalapeno and a 60ghs single
Both stable running Jalapeno since feb 2014 up to today and single mar2014 to apr214
The single is noisy its like a hair dryer open all the time and it consumes 275 w
wish it was quite ...it like it being stable
Jalapeno needs to be run cool so a spare usb fan is poing it at it and now its been 10days whith
no reset.
Actually would be friendly with the idea of buying another jalapeno its a pity that BFL has lost her
reputation...now would not buy from them I have read so many bad stories.

[bcp19]

Maybe we should ask Josh how he uses his company Diner's Club card? Maybe they pay for meals for BCP and PG when they are in town I am sure that your pre-order money is well spend lavishing food and trinkets on those who would shill for BFL right? I don't think any BFL customers would be happy to learn personal expenses are the norm for employees with credit cards.

Gee, to listen to you, one would think companies never make a profit.  That transcript you keep harping on talks about $2.5mil in revenue from 2012 for the FPGAs, and I highly doubt that it cost that much to produce them, so there had to be a profit.  Are you trying to say it's wrong to use the profit from a company?  I'm glad I dont work for you, you probably force your employees to pay to come to work.  Kinda like your WASP project, pay to participate...

[Bicknellski]

Oh look BCP has funded a Sonny V's shopping spree. That is some smart investor right there.

[Syke]

Gee, to listen to you, one would think companies never make a profit.  That transcript you keep harping on talks about $2.5mil in revenue from 2012 for the FPGAs, and I highly doubt that it cost that much to produce them, so there had to be a profit.  Are you trying to say it's wrong to use the profit from a company?  I'm glad I dont work for you, you probably force your employees to pay to come to work.  Kinda like your WASP project, pay to participate...

Let's see what the actual court had to say.

Q. Now, should people who have company credit cards use them for personal expenses?
A. They should not.

Q. All right. And so does that continue on, do you know,by -- by Mr. Vleisides?
A. I -- I will say that it probably has continued.

Let me highlight the important comment from the court...

A. They should not.

Hmm, who's right? bcp19 or the court...

[norgan]

such a firey debate! haha

Look, if a company makes money (profit) then they are entitled to spend that as they see fit. If they run out of cash to refund customers or just flat out refuse then I personally think that's a bit rough. I can't help but point out though that mostly they have said preorders have dates that are estimates and they can vary. What seems to be in dispute here is what is a reasonable delay in shipping. Obviously some customers don't; agree with BFL's judgement of reasonable delays. I can understand this for first run and even second but you would think you could get more accurate dates after that.

I still think there needs to be more balance in this whole thing. If you were a new manufacturer and your suppliers (most likely from china) kept letting you down and not delivering the components you need (which lets face it is pretty common with Chinese manufacturing) then you would hope that your customers, who were told and accepted that this is all pretty new development stuff, would be understanding.
You would also though get some funding behind you so that you could afford to refund some customers as it's inevitable that some will not be happy and you want to ensure a good reputation.

I can't help but think BFL has copped more flack than perhaps it should have...i'm not excusing anything they have done, I just understand some of it I guess and I certainly don't deny those unhappy customers their right to dissatisfaction nor do I think they are wrong.

[jimmothy]

such a firey debate! haha

Look, if a company makes money (profit) then they are entitled to spend that as they see fit. If they run out of cash to refund customers or just flat out refuse then I personally think that's a bit rough. I can't help but point out though that mostly they have said preorders have dates that are estimates and they can vary. What seems to be in dispute here is what is a reasonable delay in shipping. Obviously some customers don't; agree with BFL's judgement of reasonable delays. I can understand this for first run and even second but you would think you could get more accurate dates after that.

I still think there needs to be more balance in this whole thing. If you were a new manufacturer and your suppliers (most likely from china) kept letting you down and not delivering the components you need (which lets face it is pretty common with Chinese manufacturing) then you would hope that your customers, who were told and accepted that this is all pretty new development stuff, would be understanding.
You would also though get some funding behind you so that you could afford to refund some customers as it's inevitable that some will not be happy and you want to ensure a good reputation.

I can't help but think BFL has copped more flack than perhaps it should have...i'm not excusing anything they have done, I just understand some of it I guess and I certainly don't deny those unhappy customers their right to dissatisfaction nor do I think they are wrong.

Do you really consider preorder money for nonexistant hardware to be profit? Before shipping a single machine they are allowing employees and their family members free access to customer funds?

And how can you blame china for BFLs failures? Are you really BFL josh? How can component delays delay your product? You should have everything ready months in advanced. You do realize that a majority of the hashrate is powered by chinese machines? The a1 miners and bitmain have never sold preorders nor have they scammed customers like BFL has.

BFL has shown time and time again that they only use preorders as a marketing scheme. They don't sell in stock hardware because they are not confident in their abilities to deliver on time or to specification. This is fraud plain and simple.

[norgan]

such a firey debate! haha..........I can't help but think BFL has copped more flack than perhaps it should have...i'm not excusing anything they have done, I just understand some of it I guess and I certainly don't deny those unhappy customers their right to dissatisfaction nor do I think they are wrong.

Do you really consider preorder money for nonexistant hardware to be profit? Before shipping a single machine they are allowing employees and their family members free access to customer funds?

And how can you blame china for BFLs failures? Are you really BFL josh? How can component delays delay your product? You should have everything ready months in advanced. You do realize that a majority of the hashrate is powered by chinese machines? The a1 miners and bitmain have never sold preorders nor have they scammed customers like BFL has.

BFL has shown time and time again that they only use preorders as a marketing scheme. They don't sell in stock hardware because they are not confident in their abilities to deliver on time or to specification. This is fraud plain and simple.

Yes you are right, they should have had them ready before announcing shipping dates but they obviously didn't and can you blame them for trying to get in early and become the first to have fast efficient machines. IF they spent customer money before machines were built and delivered then they were very silly, it can only be profit once all the bills are paid and that includes customer refunds if applicable.

I think you'll find most companies balance stock with orders and will delay shipments (sure not as much as 6 months) but I guess that's the risk strategy BFL chose and it hasn't paid off for many of it's customers.

[Bicknellski]

FGPA's delayed and under spec.
65nm delayed and under spec.
28nm delayed and under spec.

Who is at fault?
Who took 1 year to deliver 65nm?
Who took 15+ months and counting to deliver 28nm?

Seriously. Only BFL is to blame for their failure to deliver in a timely fashion and given that it has happened every time they have put out product including CLOUD HASHING you know that this isn't supply chain or production issues it is likely a dragging your feet tactic in order set up a nice little pyramid pump... which has been explain many times in many threads. You get pre-order money. Fake a delay. Mine on equipment that you fab for "yourself". Delay further and push more pre-orders as others ask for refunds. Rinse and repeat. This is a scam straight up.

No one in their right mind knowing the details of what has gone on here is going to buy BFL ever again. Why would you? Antminer. Available now. You pay they ship. BFL is nothing more than a black hole where your pre-orders go in and refunds are stated as 30 to 45 days if ever but more like 12 months or longer in reality. That is a well managed scam and when the FTC does catch up with BFL it is going to be ugly.

[desired_username]

FGPA's delayed and under spec.
65nm delayed and under spec.
28nm delayed and under spec.

Who is at fault?
Who took 1 year to deliver 65nm?
Who took 15+ months and counting to deliver 28nm?

Seriously. Only BFL is to blame for their failure to deliver in a timely fashion and given that it has happened every time they have put out product including CLOUD HASHING you know that this isn't supply chain or production issues it is likely a dragging your feet tactic in order set up a nice little pyramid pump... which has been explain many times in many threads. You get pre-order money. Fake a delay. Mine on equipment that you fab for "yourself". Delay further and push more pre-orders as others ask for refunds. Rinse and repeat. This is a scam straight up.

No one in their right mind knowing the details of what has gone on here is going to buy BFL every again. Why would you? Antminer. Available now. You pay they ship. BFL is nothing more than a black hole where your pre-orders go in and refunds are stated as 30 to 45 days if ever but more like 12 months or longer in reality. That is a well managed scam and when the FTC does catch up with BFL it is going to be ugly.

It describes Cointerra too. They use the same "business" model

[Bicknellski]

FGPA's delayed and under spec.
65nm delayed and under spec.
28nm delayed and under spec.

Who is at fault?
Who took 1 year to deliver 65nm?
Who took 15+ months and counting to deliver 28nm?

Seriously. Only BFL is to blame for their failure to deliver in a timely fashion and given that it has happened every time they have put out product including CLOUD HASHING you know that this isn't supply chain or production issues it is likely a dragging your feet tactic in order set up a nice little pyramid pump... which has been explain many times in many threads. You get pre-order money. Fake a delay. Mine on equipment that you fab for "yourself". Delay further and push more pre-orders as others ask for refunds. Rinse and repeat. This is a scam straight up.

No one in their right mind knowing the details of what has gone on here is going to buy BFL every again. Why would you? Antminer. Available now. You pay they ship. BFL is nothing more than a black hole where your pre-orders go in and refunds are stated as 30 to 45 days if ever but more like 12 months or longer in reality. That is a well managed scam and when the FTC does catch up with BFL it is going to be ugly.

It describes Cointerra too. They use the same "business" model

Unfortunately that describes HashFast and others as well. Sadly the small guy gets screwed.

[bcp19]

Gee, to listen to you, one would think companies never make a profit.  That transcript you keep harping on talks about $2.5mil in revenue from 2012 for the FPGAs, and I highly doubt that it cost that much to produce them, so there had to be a profit.  Are you trying to say it's wrong to use the profit from a company?  I'm glad I dont work for you, you probably force your employees to pay to come to work.  Kinda like your WASP project, pay to participate...

Let's see what the actual court had to say.

Q. Now, should people who have company credit cards use them for personal expenses?
A. They should not.

Q. All right. And so does that continue on, do you know,by -- by Mr. Vleisides?
A. I -- I will say that it probably has continued.

Let me highlight the important comment from the court...

A. They should not.

Hmm, who's right? bcp19 or the court...

As usual, you are taking things out of context.  Bickfailski said
"Maybe we should ask Josh how he uses his company Diner's Club card? Maybe they pay for meals for BCP and PG when they are in town I am sure that your pre-order money is well spend lavishing food and trinkets on those who would shill for BFL right? I don't think any BFL customers would be happy to learn personal expenses are the norm for employees with credit cards."

Which is what my comment was in reference to.

Since you bring it up though, that WASN'T the court answering, it was BFL's accountant.  Now, let's look CAREFULLY at that wording... they SHOULD not.  Should is used in statements like you SHOULD eat more fruit, it's like a recommendation, not an absolute.  They SHOULD not means it's not a recommended practice, but you and the other trolls treat it like the statement was "That is absolutely wrong and against the law".  Guess you flunked English, eh?

[Bicknellski]

BCP is a paid advocate for BFL. He took dinner and a miner paid for by pre-orders which is customer money. Ethically he like BFL has no standing in this community and when asked a clear majority of people here understand that and will not BUY BFL based on the facts as posted 1000s of times here in these forums by 100s of dissatisfied customers. It is best to ignore him and keep pushing all avenues to have BFL brought to justice. Currently the class action and reporting BFL to the probation officer for current failures of the 28nm Monarch delivery would be the right move.

Here are my predictions.

Sonny V. gets jail time in 2014.
Check out claims 44, 52 and 55 (b) viii reagarding Eclipse mining.
28nm Monarch doesn't ship until later in 2014 after more delays.
BFL is forced to refund everyone or they go bankrupt in 2014.

There is nothing in what BCP has said or will say that is truthful and honest about the BFL scam. He is not an honest broker here in this community and when this is all finally put to rest in the courts there will be no where he can hide to twist the argument to suit his perverse need to debate what are known facts. In the end the truth will come out. Discovery will show they have used customer units to profit and then delayed shipping in order to profit further you can't hide the TX ID on what was mined. They are doing the same thing right now with the 28nm no doubt. Let us see this house of cards come down in 2014 and hopefully customers can get their money back.

If you have paid for Buttery Labs equipment, yet failed to receive your order or failed to receive it by the promised time, please contact our office using the form below.

http://www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners

Thank you for contacting the Wood Law Firm regarding this case or investigation. We look forward to discussing it with you.

We are usually able to respond within 24 hours, and often much less. If you would like to speak directly with our office staff, or need a more immediate reply, please call us toll-free at 888-237-0999.

Please remember the submission of this form does not mean we can or will represent you in this matter. We can only represent you if both you and we agree, in writing, that we will serve as your attorney.

[Bicknellski]

What kind of business is BFL?

Will they honor and refund your purchase?

Take a LONG HARD LOOK at what lengths they will go to NOT refund people.


AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AKA "SOME VERY VERY GOOD REASONS NEVER TO BUY BFL AGAIN BECAUSE THIS IS HOW THEY WILL SLIME OUT OF AGREEMENTS TO SHIP ON TIME AND NOT REFUND ACCORDING TO FTC REGULATIONS."

Code:

Defendant BF Labs states the following for its affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint:

1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as Plaintiffs accepted the terms of their pre-order and
understood that all sales were final and that there was a backlog of orders and production and
delivery of any order may take two months or longer.

2. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because BF Labs “FAQ” website states it reserves
“the right to handle refund requests on a case by case basis” and pre-ordered products are nonrefundable
as is clearly stated at the time of purchase.

3. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs understood that deliveries may take
two months or more after order.

4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because Plaintiffs expressly agreed to a pre-order
arrangement, knowing delay would be two months or longer and BF Labs was unable to make
any representation regarding the length of delay.

5. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred as the products in question are designed and
manufactured in accordance with the standards in the industry.

6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the products in question underwent burn
testing for a minimal amount of time and had not be assigned to a customer order at the time of
the burn testing.

7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because untested products are not finished goods and
could not be customers’ equipment.

8. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred pursuant to K.S.A. 84-2-501, in that the products in
question were not identified in any contract at the time of the pre-order.

9. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because burn testing was done to warrant the product
as fit and suitable for the purposes for which it is sold.

10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because BF Labs exercised reasonable care to prevent
and promptly correct any delays that Plaintiffs complains of.

11. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages request cannot be sustained as unconscionable.

12. Each and every claim contained in Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

13. Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs
have suffered no damages.

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part based on the doctrine of election
of remedies.

15. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by reason of Plaintiffs’ breaches or failures to perform
conditions precedent or subsequent.

16. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred for the reason that any actions or inactions of BF
Labs were economically justified.

17. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by reason of Plaintiffs’ unclean hands.

18. Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, which are denied, were caused by intervening and
superseding acts over which BF Labs had no control or right of control, thereby barring or
diminishing Plaintiffs’ alleged right of recovery.

19. The damages claimed by Plaintiffs are not recoverable, in whole or in part, under
Kansas or federal law.

20. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by a prior settlement and/or release of those claims or
are barred to the extent Plaintiffs have entered into an accord and satisfaction or otherwise
compromised their claims.

21. In further answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and by way of Affirmative Defense,
Defendant adopts all Affirmative Defenses available to it under the Kansas Uniform Commercial
Code or any other Uniform Commercial Code enacted by a state whose substantive law controls
in this action.

22. Defendant’s actions were neither the cause in fact nor the proximate cause of
Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any.

23. Defendant is entitled to the benefit of all defenses and presumptions contained in,
or arising from, any product liability act and/or Kansas Uniform Commercial Code.

24. The alleged damages sustained by Plaintiffs were the result of Plaintiffs’ own
comparative fault or any other “fault” pursuant to K.S.A. 60-258a and, accordingly, Plaintiffs are
barred from recovery or limited in their recovery.

25. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
waiver and estoppel.

26. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of justification.

27. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of ratification.

28. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by all applicable statutes of limitation.

29. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, pursuant to First Amendment of
the United States Constitution and similar applicable state constitutional provisions.

30. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of spoliation and the failure to
properly preserve evidence necessary to the proper and just determination of this action.

31. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent Plaintiffs entered into an accord and
satisfaction or otherwise compromised their claims.

32. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of repudiation and anticipatory
breach.

33. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred to the extent Plaintiffs prevented BF Labs from
performing.

34. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred based on Plaintiffs’ rejection of goods, as well as
Plaintiffs’ revocation of acceptance of goods.

35. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of mistake.

36. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any, or otherwise take
reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages Plaintiffs claims to have suffered. Plaintiffs
also, once they realized a claim existed, were under an obligation to minimize their alleged loss,
if any. As a result, any recovery against Defendant should be barred, reduced, or offset
accordingly.

37. Plaintiffs’ damages should be reduced as an offset by any amount received by any
other payment to mitigate damages.

38. BF Labs reserves the right to amend its Answer to assert additional defenses,
affirmative or otherwise, that may arise or become known through the course of further
investigation or discovery.

[Bicknellski]

Here is what BFL will admit to in the claims made against them:

Code:

4. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

4. Defendant BF Labs, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation with its principal place 
of business at 10770 El Monte St., #101, Leawood, Johnson County, Kansas.

5. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

5. Defendant is registered to do business in the State of Kansas and 
maintains a registered agent at 112 SW 7th Street, Suite 3C, Topeka, Kansas.

8. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

8. Defendant advertises itself to the public as a manufacturer of specialized 
computer equipment and processors for the task of mining bitcoins. 


9. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint.

9. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency created in 
2009. Unlike traditional currency, bitcoins are not issued by a government or central 
banking authority.
 

10. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Complaint

10. Bitcoin is considered a “cryptocurrency” because cryptography is used to 
control the creation and transfer of the currency, creating a distributed, decentralized, 
and secure medium of exchange. 


11. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

11. Bitcoins are regularly used to pay debts, purchase goods and services, and 
are exchanged for other currencies such as the U.S. dollar, U.K. pound sterling, or euro. 
For example on March 19, 2014, one bitcoin could be exchanged for an average of 
$613.12. 


12. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

12. Bitcoins are created by “mining”, a process where “miners” receive 
transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins in return for verifying and recording 
payments into a public ledger. 


14. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Complaint.

14. As the difficulty of Bitcoin mining has increased over time, the computer 
hardware required to profitably mine has advanced from general purpose CPUs (found 
in common desktop computers), high-end GPUs (often found in gaming computers), 
FPGAs (field-programmable gate arrays), and ultimately to ASICs (application-specific 
integrated circuits) purpose built for performing the calculations necessary for Bitcoin 
mining. 


16. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Complaint.

16. At the time of the formation of Defendant through the present, Mr. 
Vleisides was serving a term of supervised release for a felony conviction for Mail Fraud, 
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, in the United States District Court for the Central 
District of California.

17. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

17. Defendant using the name “Butterfly Labs” advertised for sale via the 
Internet a variety of ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware, stating “Butterfly Labs 
manufactures a line of high speed encryption processors for use in bitcoin mining, 
research, telecommunication and security applications”. 


21. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

21. Defendant represented its Bitcoin mining products were “in production” 
and “real”.

31. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of the Complaint.

31. In or about 2012, Defendant purchased a business known as “Eclipse 
Mining Consortium”, which operates as a Bitcoin mining pool, an organization which 
permits the combination of Bitcoin mining efforts to offer participants faster, yet 
smaller, bitcoin distributions than would be achievable if the participants conducted 
mining operations on their own. 


34. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 34 of the Complaint.

34. Defendant has collected millions of dollars from customers for pre-orders 
of Bitcoin mining hardware. 


35. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 35 of the Complaint.

35. Prior to discontinuing Defendant’s ability to accept payments through the 
service, Paypal alone had processed over $11 million dollars in pre-payments for 
Defendant’s hardware.

38. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 38 of the Complaint.

38. In June of 2013, Plaintiff Kyle Alexander ordered a Bitcoin mining 
machine from Defendant. 


39. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of the Complaint.

39. Plaintiff Kyle Alexander paid $308.00 to Defendant via PayPal for this 
equipment.

46. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Complaint.

46. Since Plaintiff Kyle Alexander pre-paid for his order of mining equipment 
from Defendant in June of 2013, numerous bitcoins have been mined by others, and the 
difficulty of mining new bitcoins has substantially increased over such time.

47. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 47 of the Complaint.

47. On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff Dylan Symington ordered a Bitcoin mining 
machine from Defendant.

48. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 48 of the Complaint.

48. Plaintiff Dylan Symington paid $1,333.00 to Defendant via PayPal for this
equipment.

51. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 51 of the Complaint.

51. Nearly seven months after receiving payment, on November 1, 2013, 
Defendant shipped mining equipment to Plaintiff Dylan Symington.

59. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of the Complaint.

59. In pertinent part, the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-626 
provides: 
No supplier shall engage in any deceptive act or practice in 
connection with a consumer transaction[.] 


60. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 60 of the Complaint.

60. In pertinent part, the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-627 
provides: 
No supplier shall engage in any unconscionable act or 
practice in connection with a consumer transaction. 


61. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 61 of the Complaint.

61. Defendant is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller, lessor, assignor, or 
other person who, in the ordinary course of business solicits, engages in or enforces 
consumer transactions, and is therefore a “supplier” as defined in K.S.A. § 50-624(l).

64. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of the Complaint.

64. The Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-634 provides for a 
private right of action for “a consumer who is aggrieved by a violation of this act.” 


76. BF Labs admits the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of the Complaint.

76. A benefit was conferred on Defendant in that Plaintiffs paid money and/or 
bitcoins to Defendant

[Syke]

Code:

6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the products in question underwent burn
testing for a minimal amount of time and had not be assigned to a customer order at the time of
the burn testing.

7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because untested products are not finished goods and
could not be customers’ equipment.

Do I understand this correctly? They mine with hardware that will be sent to customers, but claim it isn't customer hardware because there isn't an order number attached to the machine yet, and it isn't customer hardware because they're not yet finished mining with it??? Only after they finish mining with it, then it becomes customer hardware.

[lysernix]

My experience started with a Jalapeno and a 60ghs single
Both stable running Jalapeno since feb 2014 up to today and single mar2014 to apr214
The single is noisy its like a hair dryer open all the time and it consumes 275 w
wish it was quite ...it like it being stable
Jalapeno needs to be run cool so a spare usb fan is poing it at it and now its been 10days whith
no reset.
Actually would be friendly with the idea of buying another jalapeno its a pity that BFL has lost her
reputation...now would not buy from them I have read so many bad stories.

Just FYI bud... take the cover off that single. You'll go mad listening to that noise. Without the cover it's fine.

[lysernix]

Code:

6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because the products in question underwent burn
testing for a minimal amount of time and had not be assigned to a customer order at the time of
the burn testing.

7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because untested products are not finished goods and
could not be customers’ equipment.

Do I understand this correctly? They mine with hardware that will be sent to customers, but claim it isn't customer hardware because there isn't an order number attached to the machine yet, and it isn't customer hardware because they're not yet finished mining with it??? Only after they finish mining with it, then it becomes customer hardware.

You know what is going to happen... how do you explain weeks of burn in?
How do you explain all the BTC they mined as only testing?
How do they explain delaying shipping of units when after a few hours of burn in they were "working"?

There is a TX ID trail that is going to show what actually happened and when it does there will be 100s or potentially 1000's of units mining at Eclipse for BFL as "burn in" testing for weeks then being replaced at regular intervals with new machines. You know what they did. First they said they never mined anything now they admit the mined for burn in... what do you think really happened here? The scam will proven at that instant and no one is going accept that as standard practice. This is where they get demolished in court. If I had purchased a BFL unit I would be joining this class actions asap to make sure I got a piece of that pie. This shell game they played is going to be easy to discover.

I personally believe they calculated it out so that no one would EVER receive a piece of hardware that provided ANY ROI. The INSTANT that the hardware would never mine as much as it cost... THAT'S when they ship it!

I have a couple pieces of BFL equipment and I know some people who've had a ton of it. They were luckily able to break even and even profit by mining for a VERY short period of time and then flipping them on ebay (this is months ago mostly with jalapenos, singles, couple FPGAs).

I would be interested to learn of a SINGLE person, who, bought a BFL miner with either cash or bitcoin and then with JUST that miner was able to recover their investment and then some - solely by mining. I don't think that person exists.

And the monarchs. LOL. What a joke.

The only thing I wish that could happen.... could BFL please be around long enough (long shot!) to promise some sort of round 3 hardware? I would LOVE to see the specs, promises, and explanations about the development and turnaround on that one! It's comedy relief!

Whenever I'm bored I honestly look for BFL threads for entertainment. They're so fun to read! :p