AMT users thread.

[opieum2]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

[FrictionlessCoin]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

Explain to me why two of the AMT press releases that mention IMET were both censored (i.e. not published)?

Why did AMT hide the fact that IMET was their manufacturer?

There are 50+ miners that are missing in the wild unaccounted for.  If IMET were to be believed,  AMT is running a farce that they are shipping known broken miners to customers to give the impression that

(1) they have nothing but broken miners.
(2) they are mining with customer hardware.

That is the only conclusion that does make sense.

We'll find out more when we get more details in the lawsuit.

Well, explain to me how IMET should be a defendant in the lawsuit?   How can AMT claim damages when they didn't pay in full for their parts?

[Flying Hellfish]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

Explain to me why two of the AMT press releases that mention IMET were both censored (i.e. not published)?

Why did AMT hide the fact that IMET was their manufacturer?

There are 50+ miners that are missing in the wild unaccounted for.  If IMET were to be believed,  AMT is running a farce that they are shipping known broken miners to customers to give the impression that

(1) they have nothing but broken miners.
(2) they are mining with customer hardware.

That is the only conclusion that does make sense.

We'll find out more when we get more details in the lawsuit.

Well, explain to me how IMET should be a defendant in the lawsuit?   How can AMT claim damages when they didn't pay in full for their parts?

IMET could not be named a co-defendant in the civil class action suit because no one within the class of plaintiffs ever had a contract, sales agreement or even any contact with IMET.  IMET and AMT had a contract IF that contract was broken and IF that breech caused damage then legal recourse is available to the party involved in the contract that was damaged.  This is just how the real world works, suggesting that IMET could be named in the civil class action is a joke at best and shows a lack of understanding the real world.

This is pretty basic stuff and honestly CUSTOMERS do not take the risk of supplier competency , that is a something the company negotiates and takes the risk on.  There is two contracts here one between AMT and their victims and one between AMT and IMET.  They will be dealt with separately because they are separate contracts.

Half the people in this forum have seriously misguided thoughts on how business works and how the legal system works, it's utterly amusing and discouraging all at the same time.

IMET has EXACTLY ZERO legal obligations to ANY AMT investomer for ANY reason what so ever.

[opieum2]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

Explain to me why two of the AMT press releases that mention IMET were both censored (i.e. not published)?

Why did AMT hide the fact that IMET was their manufacturer?

There are 50+ miners that are missing in the wild unaccounted for.  If IMET were to be believed,  AMT is running a farce that they are shipping known broken miners to customers to give the impression that

(1) they have nothing but broken miners.
(2) they are mining with customer hardware.

That is the only conclusion that does make sense.

We'll find out more when we get more details in the lawsuit.

Well, explain to me how IMET should be a defendant in the lawsuit?   How can AMT claim damages when they didn't pay in full for their parts?

IMET could not be named a co-defendant in the civil class action suit because no one within the class of plaintiffs ever had a contract, sales agreement or even any contact with IMET.  IMET and AMT had a contract IF that contract was broken and IF that breech caused damage then legal recourse is available to the party involved in the contract that was damaged.  This is just how the real world works, suggesting that IMET could be named in the civil class action is a joke at best and shows a lack of understanding the real world.

This is pretty basic stuff and honestly CUSTOMERS do not take the risk of supplier competency , that is a something the company negotiates and takes the risk on.  There is two contracts here one between AMT and their victims and one between AMT and IMET.  They will be dealt with separately because they are separate contracts.

Half the people in this forum have seriously misguided thoughts on how business works and how the legal system works, it's utterly amusing and discouraging all at the same time.

IMET has EXACTLY ZERO legal obligations to ANY AMT investomer for ANY reason what so ever.

Fair point on the co-defendent... That would need to be AMT needs to be going after them. Makes sense. That being said AMT does not have to disclose that IMET was their manufacturer. This is actually more common than you think. Most large electronics companies source their stuff out like this. Foxconn is one of the more well known of these types of companies...(who are well known for making Apple products). They are known only because people are looking but not because they are disclosed.

[Flying Hellfish]

That being said AMT does not have to disclose that IMET was their manufacturer. This is actually more common than you think. Most large electronics companies source their stuff out like this. Foxconn is one of the more well known of these types of companies...(who are well known for making Apple products). They are known only because people are looking but not because they are disclosed.

Of course they don't have to disclose that information but they did (or someone found it out?).

IMET appears to be in between a rock and a hard place either way.

If we believe IMET, then we can safely assume they are simply looking for the best, cheapest easiest way to be made whole.  They likely know litigation will be expensive and probably fruitless at the end of the day, so they should be willing to find the best way short of litigation to be made as whole as possible.  Selling boards to AMT customers is probably a really bad idea for IMET.  AMT and IMET need to fix this between themselves and involving AMT investomers some how is probably not a good option for IMET at this point (IMO).

If we believe AMT, then IMET could be in for some heat.  They would not be made whole and could face future litigation.

IMET is eating a shit sandwich for doing business with AMT one way or another, but its largely irrelevant to AMT investomers.

Supplier competency is just one of the many reasons (although it appears to be the only reason in miner manufacturing)  that a company needs to be properly capitalized.  Customers do not see or participate in the supplier negotiations, contracts etc, they also don't take any of those risks associated with those contracts.  As you say most of the time it's not even disclosed to the customer.

From a pure business stand point the entire miner manufacturing world is so fascinating.  Almost all of the current manufacture's have done an almost text book perfect job of fucking up every basic business fundamental yet they thrive because short term supply and demand is EXTREMELY skewed.   It is an enigma that will not last if BTC hangs around.  The sustainability of business models used by most current manufactures is a HUGE joke.  It's quite amusing to think that AMT can fight or settle the class action, pay for enough new miners to fulfil current obligations plus MPP plus sell enough new machines in a RAPIDLY declining market  to stay afloat and pay off all their other accumulated debt, well that is laughable at best.  Try taking that plan to the bank (without personal collateral) or VC and watch how fast they laugh your sorry ass out of the room.

Everyone from AMT to it's suppliers to it's investomers are probably fucked because these half wits decided to break rule #1 (under capitalize their idiotic idea).

[IMET]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

[IMET]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Today is 6/16/2016 ....   waiting for an official response from AMT regarding the lawsuit.

[opieum2]

Today is 6/16/2016 ....   waiting for an official response from AMT regarding the lawsuit.

Its also 8:49AM the courthouse likely is not even open yet Give it till the end of the day. The info should be getting published from one side or the other. I imagine the plantiff lawfirm will publish the response as well.

[FrictionlessCoin]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs.   I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues.  Also,  usually some boards do come out bad,  isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?

I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? 

I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen.   I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality.  Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').

I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.

[IMET]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs.   I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues.  Also,  usually some boards do come out bad,  isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?

I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? 

I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen.   I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality.  Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').

I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.

I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning.  Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT.  Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly.  I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT.  Again, we built to print.  We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this).  The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection).  Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs).  I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked.  We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here.       

[IMET]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs.   I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues.  Also,  usually some boards do come out bad,  isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?

I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? 

I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen.   I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality.  Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').

I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.

I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning.  Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT.  Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly.  I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT.  Again, we built to print.  We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this).  The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection).  Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs).  I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked.  We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here.       

One last thing that I forgot to address was rework.  Yields were good, but every once in a while something would shift or a resistor or capacitor would tombstone.  There are quite a few bad footprints on the hash boards by the way.  If there were any assembly issues that did not pass IPC (Acceptability of Electronics Assemblies), we did the rework here in house before delivery to AMT.  Once we were done, everything passed IPC class 2.   

[FrictionlessCoin]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs.   I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues.  Also,  usually some boards do come out bad,  isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?

I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? 

I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen.   I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality.  Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').

I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.

I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning.  Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT.  Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly.  I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT.  Again, we built to print.  We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this).  The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection).  Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs).  I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked.  We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here.       

One last thing that I forgot to address was rework.  Yields were good, but every once in a while something would shift or a resistor or capacitor would tombstone.  There are quite a few bad footprints on the hash boards by the way.  If there were any assembly issues that did not pass IPC (Acceptability of Electronics Assemblies), we did the rework here in house before delivery to AMT.  Once we were done, everything passed IPC class 2.   

So clearly, it seems improbable that AMT received 300 boards that have passed AOI only to have all of them fail.   

Unless, there is a complete different explanation as to what happened.

[IMET]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs.   I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues.  Also,  usually some boards do come out bad,  isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?

I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? 

I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen.   I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality.  Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').

I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.

I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning.  Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT.  Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly.  I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT.  Again, we built to print.  We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this).  The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection).  Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs).  I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked.  We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here.       

One last thing that I forgot to address was rework.  Yields were good, but every once in a while something would shift or a resistor or capacitor would tombstone.  There are quite a few bad footprints on the hash boards by the way.  If there were any assembly issues that did not pass IPC (Acceptability of Electronics Assemblies), we did the rework here in house before delivery to AMT.  Once we were done, everything passed IPC class 2.   

So clearly, it seems improbable that AMT received 300 boards that have passed AOI only to have all of them fail.   

Unless, there is a complete different explanation as to what happened.

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

[IMET]

I know you're goofing phin, but it's not defamation if it's true. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html

So it's really just a statement. One I've not seen refuted by the way. So unless they are lying about the check they have no grounds to sue for defamation.

IMET on the other hand could sue if it was not their manufacturing process that cause the issue with the boards since AMT has openly blamed them. And this could obviously injure them financially.

The problem here is that while its possible AMT issued a bad check, it's also entirely possible they are also lying to cover their asses. Consider this. Why is it that AMT's miner happened to be the ONLY group of miners that had these defects (technobit versions did not have these problems from those who had them), just A1 versions? No other manufacturers had issues that could not be fixed with firmware, this was hardware. The thing is these issues would have had to have happened at the point they chips got mounted. The fact that dpot settings would not stick also indicate a major hardware defect.... This is not firmware related. That much is obvious. Maybe AMT mounted the heatsinks. That would not necessarily explain the other overheat issues (maybe one or two cases but not all of them). There were alot of things that could have been prevented here.

There are obvious flags on the fact it was hardware. Since IMET was sourced out to do this it seems like a likely situation. Bad check or not, the hardware given was still faulty. And IMET's story has changed. First they said AMT had 300 of 900 boards. About 1/3rd originally....and now more recently its changed to most of them? This again raises flags. And they admitted an interest in the bitcoin mining business which taints their motive. An IMET made miner is essentially what we got. Considering I had one that systematically failed with 5 boards dropping off within minutes of being powered on and 5 more dying over a period of days seems kinda odd to want a miner from them. I am not the only one with this story of the hardware failing in this manner. I imagine a more through search and post-mortem would identify more problems on the boards themselves just based on the symptomatic reactions the boards each had.

Just think its important to demonstrate that this issue is not all just on AMT either despite the issues. Hell if we knew about IMET before the lawsuit they could have been named in all this. But its not the case now. Might not be too late to amend the case to include them. But I have to question their need to come on here and give few real concrete answers and do what is a clear CYA campaign.

There is no changing the story.  Let me clarify.  AMT has most of the boards that were built.  I hope that clears it up. 

Also, I was interested in the market but IMET's interest is solely to be made whole.  I came on here to address the public accusations from AMT.  Once again, we did not have to change or tweak any electronics hardware.  Everything that we build was to print anyway and we only built PCBs.  That was IMET's scope of work.

It's never been clear to me as to exactly what was IMET's responsibilities beyond just printing the PCBs.   I would gather that there was some test suite to verify if the mounting was performed without issues.  Also,  usually some boards do come out bad,  isn't there like some people who do some re-work to correct issues with individual boards?

I really would like to know, who was responsible for Quality Control? 

I mean, this is biggest screw up I have ever seen.   I've never paid anything close to $6,000 worth of equipment only to find this substandard level of quality.  Of course, it's not only the units, but the entire technical and customer support has been unbelieveably substandard (if you call non-existent 'sub-standard').

I don't even know where AMT will find witnesses who would claim that AMT provided *any* support.

I personally worked very closely with AMT to bring up these boards in the beginning.  Once the boards worked and I was comfortable, IMET built the PCBs to print, and transferred them to AMT.  Because of the work we had in house, AMT was clearly advised that we did not have the capacity to do anything but the PCB assembly.  I suggested putting a professional assembly team together and I even shared many of my contacts who intimately became frustrated with AMT.  Again, we built to print.  We did not do the design, and I can only vouch for the PCB assembly (although I saw the boards work fine and continue to see this).  The boards were put through our quality system which culminated with AOI (Automatic optical inspection).  Once they passed AOI, the boards were given to AMT for heatsinks, individual PCB electrical testing, final assembly, final testing, final QC (basically everything but the PCBs).  I can assure you that the boards were built exactly to print and they worked.  We have 100% yield on the boards that AMT left here.       

One last thing that I forgot to address was rework.  Yields were good, but every once in a while something would shift or a resistor or capacitor would tombstone.  There are quite a few bad footprints on the hash boards by the way.  If there were any assembly issues that did not pass IPC (Acceptability of Electronics Assemblies), we did the rework here in house before delivery to AMT.  Once we were done, everything passed IPC class 2.   

So clearly, it seems improbable that AMT received 300 boards that have passed AOI only to have all of them fail.   

Unless, there is a complete different explanation as to what happened.

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

Let me clear one thing up.  The PCBs are not broken because of PCB assembly issues.  The overall design (not the PCBs) should be scrutinized and as well as AMT QC.  The unit that was given to the AMT customer that I am working with was scary when we opened it up.

[FrictionlessCoin]

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

So let me get this straight.  You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested?

Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer?  How are they supposed to do this?

Talk about breach of fidiciuary duty.

[IMET]

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

So let me get this straight.  You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested?

Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer?  How are they supposed to do this?

Talk about breach of fidiciuary duty.

We would have looked into fixing boards if AMT was willing to pay for this work.  The problems occurred are not due to PCB assembly.  Because the problems are not due to PCB assembly, this work is out of scope for IMET and we would need to be compensated.           

[YourPalToots]

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

So let me get this straight.  You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested?

Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer?  How are they supposed to do this?

Talk about breach of fiduciary duty.

We would have looked into fixing boards if AMT was willing to pay for this work.  The problems occurred are not due to PCB assembly.  Because the problems are not due to PCB assembly, this work is out of scope for IMET and we would need to be compensated.           

So what you are saying is, you put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat but only because that was the design that was giving to you. Looking back at it, we know the car has very well made parts and the parts are installed very well but they are installed in the wrong place.

[IMET]

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

So let me get this straight.  You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested?

Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer?  How are they supposed to do this?

Talk about breach of fiduciary duty.

We would have looked into fixing boards if AMT was willing to pay for this work.  The problems occurred are not due to PCB assembly.  Because the problems are not due to PCB assembly, this work is out of scope for IMET and we would need to be compensated.           

So what you are saying is, you put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat but only because that was the design that was giving to you. Looking back at it, we know the car has very well made parts and the parts are installed very well but they are installed in the wrong place.

Not quite.  We built to print and ONLY the PCBs.  I think this is the point that is being missed here.  We did verify that the PCBs worked before going into production.  We delivered good product to AMT, but it was only the PCBs.  The rest of the work was done by AMT so if they put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat, I had no control and it is out of scope for IMET to correct these problems.   

[IMET]

They all can't be bad.  AMT gave their customer that I am working with two good boards which are in the system we are running online.  I suggested to AMT that they can pay their bill, sort through the delivered PCBs for what is still working, and I can show them what we have done.  They are not interested.  PCBs that are broken can also be repaired with some troubleshooting; however, that is something that AMT expected IMET to do for free.  This is out of our scope of work and may not be cost effective.  Engineering time would need to be expended to make that decision.     

So let me get this straight.  You had offered to AMT to fix any non-working PCBs, yet they aren't interested?

Are they supposed to fix any non-working units delivered to the customer?  How are they supposed to do this?

Talk about breach of fiduciary duty.

We would have looked into fixing boards if AMT was willing to pay for this work.  The problems occurred are not due to PCB assembly.  Because the problems are not due to PCB assembly, this work is out of scope for IMET and we would need to be compensated.           

So what you are saying is, you put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat but only because that was the design that was giving to you. Looking back at it, we know the car has very well made parts and the parts are installed very well but they are installed in the wrong place.

Not quite.  We built to print and ONLY the PCBs.  I think this is the point that is being missed here.  We did verify that the PCBs worked before going into production.  We delivered good product to AMT, but it was only the PCBs.  The rest of the work was done by AMT so if they put the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat, I had no control and it is out of scope for IMET to correct these problems.   

...and if putting the steering wheel in the trunk and the transmission in the backseat damaged the said steering wheel and transmission (aka hash PCB boards), then this is out of IMET's control and scope.