Treat the 32 sample chips like they were a partial delivery of Ragin's total order, deduct that percentage from his refund amount, move on with life.
I would support taking that ~2.5btc and splitting it up amongst everyone in the group getting a refund, donating it to the additional supporters who created spreadsheets for the account, or adding it to JohnK's tip jar and he can give tips as he sees fit to the other folk who have helped in this thread.
EITHER WAY... don't let it hold up the refund. Process the refund ASAP and let everyone get 98.5% back in their pockets. Can split up the extra later if that's the decision of the group.
Topic: [Group Buy#1] Avalon ASICs CHIPS! Using JohnK as escrow! FINISHED! - page 16. (Read 150591 times)
September 30, 2013, 07:04:24 AM
September 30, 2013, 06:17:22 AM
The other group buy refunds are almost done .. yes this one is a mess ... but when is the refunding going to get started??
Whew, I refunded all other GB's I've received refunds for, and now am trying to make a headway here. Please expect delays due to the fragmented nature of this particular refund list.
Based on JohnK's post above, it sounds like we need to give him a clear list of ownership (including the sample chips issue) and some time. No specific date set yet, and it sounds like it may not all happen at once.
scotjam
September 30, 2013, 05:13:44 AM
The other group buy refunds are almost done .. yes this one is a mess ... but when is the refunding going to get started??
September 30, 2013, 12:57:47 AM
Once again I agree with Noitev's logical assessment of the situation. We can easily infer Ragin took the sample chips as an additional payment for being group buy organizer. He then failed in those duties and agreed to not receive those funds. I don't understand the disconnect people are having in recognizing that the sample chips were at worst stolen from this group buy and at best a part of his payment as organizer. We are not "seizing [...] BTC". Ragin was paid for services that were not rendered and thus owes us that amount, it would only make sense to subtract it from the funds he is due back rather than trust that a person who has proven unreliable will offer it back to us.
My issue merely stems from the fact that we'd be tapping Raging's chip funds, not Raging's fee, to cover that debt.
The more I've thought about it, though, the more I can accept it from the perspective that Raging simply received some of his chips early, and is therefore not entitled to a refund on those chips.
So, with that in mind, I do support withholding the appropriate sum for those sample chips (30?).
September 29, 2013, 09:06:03 AM
We could back and forth, but I propose we vote.
I made a simple form for this express purpose:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/197FRCI5sRWs9UDuHSZ9HFTO_7_WD4acvAlcKMMCWyAE/formResponse
I know the chips were 1/3 of one percent of the total buy, and thus is generally insignificant, but at this point I'm so upset with Raging's handling of this group buy and subsequent behavior that I don't believe he should receive even a satoshi more than he absolutely has to in this group buy.
So here's ANOTHER form that you can choose to fill out if you wish, and we can gauge how to go forward with regards to the sample chips.
I made a simple form for this express purpose:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/197FRCI5sRWs9UDuHSZ9HFTO_7_WD4acvAlcKMMCWyAE/formResponse
I know the chips were 1/3 of one percent of the total buy, and thus is generally insignificant, but at this point I'm so upset with Raging's handling of this group buy and subsequent behavior that I don't believe he should receive even a satoshi more than he absolutely has to in this group buy.
So here's ANOTHER form that you can choose to fill out if you wish, and we can gauge how to go forward with regards to the sample chips.
September 29, 2013, 07:38:29 AM
Once again I agree with Noitev's logical assessment of the situation. We can easily infer Ragin took the sample chips as an additional payment for being group buy organizer. He then failed in those duties and agreed to not receive those funds. I don't understand the disconnect people are having in recognizing that the sample chips were at worst stolen from this group buy and at best a part of his payment as organizer. We are not "seizing [...] BTC". Ragin was paid for services that were not rendered and thus owes us that amount, it would only make sense to subtract it from the funds he is due back rather than trust that a person who has proven unreliable will offer it back to us.
September 29, 2013, 07:05:54 AM
As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.
My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.
Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.
The chips weren't decided on in the beginning. We definitley voted 8 go to bkk. the rest he said he'd keep because "the 1% wasn't that much for being the organizer and he wanted to keep the rest to test personally." This sort of implies that he was keeping the remainder as part of his 1% for being organizer which, at the time, seemed fair. Seeing how he recently said he didn't deserve the 1%, it only makes sense he pay for the chips.
I'd still rather have a good reason to give him a negative trust rating than seize 32 chips worth of BTC. Raging the group buy participant should be kept separate from Raging the group buy organizer as much as possible.
If he is halfway decent - or cares at all about his trust rating - he will offer to pay for the chips.
Why is this an "or" situation? we can have the chips he gave away and give him bad trust. There's no way he's doing any more group buys or stuff likewise with the nonsense he's gone through, who offer him an ultimatum?
September 28, 2013, 11:17:31 PM
As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.
My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.
Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.
The chips weren't decided on in the beginning. We definitley voted 8 go to bkk. the rest he said he'd keep because "the 1% wasn't that much for being the organizer and he wanted to keep the rest to test personally." This sort of implies that he was keeping the remainder as part of his 1% for being organizer which, at the time, seemed fair. Seeing how he recently said he didn't deserve the 1%, it only makes sense he pay for the chips.
I'd still rather have a good reason to give him a negative trust rating than seize 32 chips worth of BTC. Raging the group buy participant should be kept separate from Raging the group buy organizer as much as possible.
If he is halfway decent - or cares at all about his trust rating - he will offer to pay for the chips.
September 28, 2013, 11:03:30 PM
As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.
My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.
Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.
The chips weren't decided on in the beginning. We definitley voted 8 go to bkk. the rest he said he'd keep because "the 1% wasn't that much for being the organizer and he wanted to keep the rest to test personally." This sort of implies that he was keeping the remainder as part of his 1% for being organizer which, at the time, seemed fair. Seeing how he recently said he didn't deserve the 1%, it only makes sense he pay for the chips.
September 28, 2013, 07:49:52 PM
As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.
My vote is that we proceed as normal, the sample chips were not accounted for in the group buy agreement. Hurt him in his trust, not his pocket.
Of course, if my premise is wrong, and there is a record that we agreed elsewise regarding the sample chips prior to closing the group buy, I suggest levying appropriate penalties. This is the most legally accountable solution.
September 28, 2013, 11:17:20 AM
As per the 32 sample chip issue, I think it's quite fair that the amount of chips were taken from OP and split amongst buyers here, but note that in other GB's the sample chips weren't in the equation when the refunds were made. I'm open for discussion on this though.
September 28, 2013, 11:14:31 AM
Customary 'I'm not dead' post:
Whew, I refunded all other GB's I've received refunds for, and now am trying to make a headway here. Please expect delays due to the fragmented nature of this particular refund list.
Whew, I refunded all other GB's I've received refunds for, and now am trying to make a headway here. Please expect delays due to the fragmented nature of this particular refund list.
September 27, 2013, 09:02:57 AM
Yea, I guess since this whole group buy has been built on fractions of chips, it could apply here too.
September 27, 2013, 09:00:17 AM
Let's not forget that Raging paid for 212 chips. That means he was entitled to .67904 of the 32 developer chips. I'd be ok with only charging him 31 chips, since his purchase legitimately entitled him to a portion of one.
or .67 of one
September 27, 2013, 07:51:50 AM
Let's not forget that Raging paid for 212 chips. That means he was entitled to .67904 of the 32 developer chips. I'd be ok with only charging him 31 chips, since his purchase legitimately entitled him to a portion of one.
September 27, 2013, 07:03:38 AM
Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.
Think they're talking about making Ragin pay for the sample chips not his bulk chip order?
Yup. The way I see it Ragin received 32 total chips, therefore, he's not entitled to a refund for those 32, since he received those chips. If he were to get a refund on those 32 chips which he took, he would be double-dipping. He's entitled to a refund for all the chips he paid for minus the 32 he took.
It's not rocket science. It's pretty simple, really.
When you put it like that, yeah. haha
September 26, 2013, 11:02:40 PM
Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.
Think they're talking about making Ragin pay for the sample chips not his bulk chip order?
Yup. The way I see it Ragin received 32 total chips, therefore, he's not entitled to a refund for those 32, since he received those chips. If he were to get a refund on those 32 chips which he took, he would be double-dipping. He's entitled to a refund for all the chips he paid for minus the 32 he took.
It's not rocket science. It's pretty simple, really.
September 26, 2013, 01:53:13 PM
There were tips sent to the payment address for John K. When I have a moment I'll capture those that were recorded and see if they match up to the extra total.
the total to john includes the tips I believe.
36905473f73a53874f81da80629be982ec269116e59c0ca723032f94e9aae149 has 11.99906528 BTC
e03868aa432c035196bd7476551ac5fafec8b7d5915b256c7385d778c5fa0528 has 0.01025 BTC
combined, this is more than 1.5% to John k. so I assume this includes tips.
Part of the discrepancy could be from the original sheet. For instance, I paid 20.83225 BTC but the original spreadsheet shows 20.822 BTC.
My transaction is:
https://blockchain.info/tx/0907a3597cfaa9e02dae4f5a4a5d103e8eafd000ad0500fb4c81784aa4d96fd7
I think the original spreadsheet did some funky math to get the "# of Chips". I just added a column dividing the actual payment by the original cost per chip, and the numbers fluctuated a little. The sum with everyone's payment equates to 10007.7655633831 chips. This is BTC.622528329997057275 more than we needed. So by incorrectly calculating people's pay, there was a slight overage.
After we get this figured out, please take away this lesson: Always deal with discrete values when proportioning out discrete items. This % of a chip bullshit is YET ANOTHER failure on Raging's part.
Edit: aceat64 your total has been updated.
September 26, 2013, 01:15:38 PM
Of course, I think Raging should pay for those chips... in which case the share per person would be 0.07930502641 after subtracting 32 shares from raging.
Think they're talking about making Ragin pay for the sample chips not his bulk chip order?
September 26, 2013, 12:40:44 PM
There were tips sent to the payment address for John K. When I have a moment I'll capture those that were recorded and see if they match up to the extra total.
the total to john includes the tips I believe.
36905473f73a53874f81da80629be982ec269116e59c0ca723032f94e9aae149 has 11.99906528 BTC
e03868aa432c035196bd7476551ac5fafec8b7d5915b256c7385d778c5fa0528 has 0.01025 BTC
combined, this is more than 1.5% to John k. so I assume this includes tips.
Part of the discrepancy could be from the original sheet. For instance, I paid 20.83225 BTC but the original spreadsheet shows 20.822 BTC.
My transaction is:
https://blockchain.info/tx/0907a3597cfaa9e02dae4f5a4a5d103e8eafd000ad0500fb4c81784aa4d96fd7
Jump to: