Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 215. (Read 880461 times)

KnC: Summer ended Sept 21, delivered mid Oct. Lets say 3 weeks late.
HashFast: "Ships Oct 20-30", still hasn't delivered mid January. Lets say 3 months late and counting.

"Hashfast is less late than KnC is." Wow. No wonder BFL is always late. You don't understand the difference between days, weeks, and months!

Yes. Same quote, I would highlight a different section though:


Not saying it's true or false (wouldn't know - it's probably false just because HashFast said it)... just saying that they have severe communication issues.

This of course starts with the fact that they said they can ship in October without communicating any information about how they could possibly do that. They kept hiding behind NDA's.

With open communication they wouldn't have had this many refund requests (well, for starters, because they wouldn't have had this many orders, and the orders they DID have would have known what they were in for), and they WOULD be able to pay out the requests they had - even in BTC.

You mean discounting the fact that Hashfast is less late than KnC is at the moment?  KnC promised summer delivery and didn't ship until the middle of October.

Bugger that, at no point now or in the future should BFL talk to Scamfast.
Last thing we need is josh to infect castro with his mystical pony land ideas
If its going to be anyone it should be KNC. if you love em or hate em least they got rigs out the door without to much delay

Other than the fact that none of us is going in court, but rather in arbitration, what could you possibly prove? There is nothing in that post but an empty threat, and i can't underestimate him to the point were he really thinks i'm this stupid.

There are a lot of interesting things that could be said about the last 10 posts, but there is no reason to start a flame war by exposing them either. So i'm simply gonna keep reading both factions of this, the other one being the recent posts in the Cointerra thread. And yes, i suggest everyone interested to do the same.


I must have missed this. Are you talking about the email where they say that:

At the start, you could only pay for babyjets with btc.  So I would guess that most of their customers paid in BTC.

Also, no, the problem is with their actions. They deliberately scammed people out of millions of dollars worth of BTC, knowing full well they'd never ship on time.  Same thing that BFL just did recently with their Monarchs, with a claimed October delivery date "estimate" with zero probability of hitting anything like that target. By the time the hardware will be delivered, it will be completely worthless.  Josh knew it, Hashfast knew it, and they deliberately scammed people.



As bad as their reputation is, I seriously doubt they'd want to sully it further by actually having anything to do with Josh.

I just would like to know if they already started the bulk production? And if not, what's the reason why they can't do it?

How do YOU of all people, don't get that their problem isn't with their actions. It's with their communications.

If they kept communicating honestly every few days saying where the real problems are, when we can expect hardware, upgrade kits, MPP etc. there would be much less people asking for refunds, and they would be able to pay the rest out even at current rates.  After all, only a small percentage of people actually paid with BTC, right? (According to THEIR communications.)

In order to introduce it into evidence in court, at lawyer would would need to actually get the poster to show up and take the stand, otherwise it would be inadmissible as hearsay.

Also, holy crap you are stupid.


Yes, that's the ideal situation for customers.  Hashfast goes out of business, and customers get the maximum amount of money returned as possible. Also, it's unlikely they spent all of their BTC on development. Their chip was already worked up before they even started taking orders.

The alternative is the option you took, which is to keep the money and deliver months late crap that will never ROI. People don't want "hardware" they want hardware that will actually make more bitcoins then it cost them.  It's the option where you keep all the money and the marks "customers" get nothing of value.

Ok, so lets consider for a moment if Hashfast did not do what was good for Hashfast... Hashfast refunds the BTC at the current rate, presumably having to purchase them off the open market. Where does that money come from?  They probably don't have it, as it's already been spent on development... but lets say they do have the cash to purchase at least some of the BTC back.  They exhaust all of their cash to do this and issue as many refunds as they can.  Now they have zero cash to continue operations (people don't generally work for free and suppliers sure as hell don't give away product for free), have not paid back everyone and are forced to go out of business. 

The end result of your solution: Some people get paid back, others get nothing. No one gets hardware.

At least to me, that sounds like a much worse solution than everyone at least getting your hardware, even if it is late.  If I were a customer, I'd rather have guaranteed late hardware than a crapshoot of a 1 in ten chance of a refund or nothing.  Maybe you have a different opinion.



Wow, that is a truly intelligent and cogent post and probably pretty accurate given the US legal system.  Thank you for taking the time to make it. 

As far as the request goes, I doubt anyone here would listen to anything I would gain information wise, since it would likely contradict their own personal biases and the crusade née witch-hunt that is going on right now.  Very few people here want to hear the truth, they just want their beliefs confirmed and the truth be damned.

Thank you! Great post!

1.) You can find several ToS-versions here: http://hashfast.org/Terms_of_Sale
     Maybe your friend can have a peek at them.

2.) One question that i would like to ask your friend:

     Given the precondition that they have sorted out their problems and producing now full scale. Whats the legal situation if they decided to force refunds all of their customers just to either mine themselves with those miners or to sell them again at higher prices in their webshop?

Something tells me that there's a flaw or two in this Modest Proposal.

As to being pragmatic, I thought my entreaties several weeks ago to collectively engage Hashfast in a compensation discussion (via the MPP, not refunds, forced, BTC, USD, or otherwise) were rather reasonable suggestions.  Others did not agree.

As an impartial observer in this situation, I'm seeing lots of contributors turning against one another over a problem that's been caused by a third party not delivering what they promised. To make matters even more confusing, a senior employee of another supplier is trying in his own way to bring a sense of reality to proceedings and possibly to help people come to terms with the situation.

I've been discussing this ongoing show with a friend of mine who's a QC (Queens Counsel or Barrister - basically a very senior lawyer who has a Right Of Audience in the highest courts in the UK) and sometimes stand-in judge, particularly over the T&C's of Hashfast and the thorny subject of refunds. Now, the first thing to recognise here is that American and UK contract and consumer law are not the same, however they are similar enough that a judge in either jurisdiction could make sense of and rule on the terms of a contract. The exceptions are the notion of 'class actions' which are not (usually) recognised in UK law, and 'fair terms and conditions' in UK consumer law which does'nt seem to have a parallel in the US.

I don't intend to bore you with the details but he had some very interesting observations.

The first and most important one was that his was not a normal sales agreement - it was more akin to a 'futures' contract for delivery of a piece of electronic equipment at a fixed price at some future time. When buyers agree to purchase the contract, it was - by the nature of the equipment and it's application - fully understood by the buyer that the equipment did not as yet exist and would only do so if sufficient buyers purchased contracts to fund it's development and manufacture. You might at this stage argue that people preorder new model BMW's or Iphones, but in these cases the development and manufacturing costs have already been met by those suppliers. It is also clear that the buyers knew that there was a risk that things might not go right, and were willing to accept that risk in return for a possible future commercial advantage.

Where this gets muddy is not in what was purchased, but rather what would happen if Hashfast failed to deliver the equipment, especially with their MPP where they are unable to supply the promised additional chips to make up for lost hashing power. I couldn't find an original copy of the original Hashfast T&C's but the current ones clearly distance Hashfast from any consequential damages from their non-delivery and limit liability to the purchase price only. For the original equipment, this would be the most likely ruling from judges on both side of the atlantic, ie neither party would gain or lose any benefit. For the MPP it's a lot more complex, but basically it's another 'futures' contract although in this case the damages could be quantified in terms of lost BTC's -regardless of whether a court accepts that they are legal currency- if Hashfast cannot deliver the missing chips. It seems they haven't built in an escape clause for that eventuality, and it may be their undoing.

Had Hashfast been contracted by a third party to build rigs for them and them  only, the contract would no doubt have included T&C's from the buyer about consequential damages or remedies in the event of non performance by Hashfast. With regards to the thorny question of refunds in BTC, my friend pointed out that Hashfast advertised products for sale in US$ OR Bitcoins, so there was a clear equivocacy between the two. It would be entirely reasonable for an 'average person' to know that being a US based company, Hashfast would pay for it's supplies and services in US dollars, and sell products for said. The fact that it was willing to accept a token of value, ie Bitcoins does not dilute this and a buyer would be under no illusions that Hashfast operated in US dollars and would have to exchange Bitcoins for said to function normally. Following on from this, it is reasonable for Hashfast to refund in US dollars. Courts in the US or UK would both rule this normal and reasonable. The fact that people might prefer BTC would not come into it, Any loss claimed by a buyer because of the rise in Bitcoins value would be swept aside - they would be no worse off with a US diollar refund now that they were when they made the purchase, and for the reasons cited above, neither (under normal circumstances) would Hashfast. Whether or not they promised refunds in Bitcoins is a moot point. If the value of Bitcoin had bombed, you wouldn't mind getting refunded in $US -that's what a judge would say.

This might not be what many of you want to hear, but it's what the end result of a court hearing is likely to bring. Hashfast can't 'force' you to take a refund but a refund is their only remedy if they can't deliver their side of the bargain. If they are refunding you or terminating the contract for convenience, then that's a whole different matter and ventures on fraud, although it would be extremely difficult to prove. You might be able to track what happened to your Bitcoins, ie did they go to an exchange when or soon after you paid, but even if they didn't it wouldn't prove Hashfast was acting in any way fraudulently.

So where do you go from here?

Well, it would help if you stop attacking one another and focus oh the real source of the problem. I don't know to what extent Hashfast are or aren't communicating, but at the risk of getting hundreds of abusive posts, might I make a suggestion?

Josh is a very prominent member of the Bitcoin community and, love him or hate him, he is an important part of a leading rig supplier. He has continued to post in this thread despite the abuse he gets, and there is some sense in what he says about the development process and things that can (and do) go wrong and some buyers attitudes. I'm sure from an entirely pragmatic perspective he doesn't want Hashfast to crash; competitor or not, it's not good for business.

If asked, he might be willing to try to talk to the Hashfast management, if only to try to get them to communicate with their buyers. He has a much better chance of doing so than any of you. I know it's not how these things normally work, but both companies and Hashfast's customers could stand to gain from a bit of pragmatism.

How about it, Josh?

From the Cointerra thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4603400

The mistake here was that HF wrote in an email that they would refund the same amount of BTC that was paid.  BFL never made that mistake - otherwise lots of parallels can be drawn, both companies have had issues with their manufacturing process, both companies are trying their hardest to get products to customers as fast as possible, and both companies are not malicious, just suffering major setbacks beyond their control, and not being as communicative as they could be.

Will

You really shouldn't call me a hypocrite. I'm not a customer of either company. I do understand the FTC regulations. None of that matters, hashfast made clear and specific offers to a shipping date, refund method and btc refund amount. They then changed those terms later, and now they are just making arbitrary decisions as to which customers they offer a refund to, which customers they just send a refund to without asking, and which customers they just have no communications with at all.

Somehow you are too stupid to understand the difference between wanting a refund as originally promised, and the offensive checks being sent out to some customers. I'm not sure what you offered to your customers in terms of refunds, but since nobody here thinks of BFL as anything more than a joke, it probably wasn't good. There was likely a lot of greed involved, on both sides. Customers wanted these magic money printers that they ordered a year prior, and BFL wanted to keep all the money and eventually ship something, timelines be damned.

Once KNC shipped all the orders they got within a few days of the promised timeline, customers saw that there could be a better way. Now the people who ordered with hashfast instead of KNC because hashfast made SO MANY promises are screwed. They will never get the machines, or the money they actually spent to purchase them.

Your business practices and communication skills speak for themselves, poorly. Watching you call your own customers names because of your failures to meet shipping deadlines time and again is just sad. Now you have become a troll, trying to complain about customers of another company with failed deadlines and promises, on a forum that you have repeatedly called garbage.
You don't want to be here, and nobody here wants to hear from you. Why are you still posting?

And it is not, but you can get a feeling of what their arguments will be. They could work with BFL, but HF screwed it up so badly that they don't really stand a chance. They know it.

Want to prove me wrong? Release the contracts with TSMC and show me how many chips you have in stock right now and how you have used them. You won't, because it would be admitting guilty more than what you already did, but that doesn't mean that i can't force you to do so.

What Josh is doing is simply confusing the ignorant, but it won't work, given the load of proofs we will have against them to make the ignorant aware of all of their behaviours.

That is exactly the problem. HF is doing what is good for HF, not for their customers. They retroactively rewrite the rules of their own game to suit their needs. Offsetting risk and losses from the company to the customer. That might be acceptable if we were investors or 'backers'. But we are not.


You use heavily biased words like whiners, criers, unsatisfiable... But all people are asking is for HF to live up to their own promises. Nobody is asking for more than they put in. Customers will be happy to break even or take modest losses at this point. I would not call that unreasonable or unsatisfiable.


This situation is entirely of their own making. Selectively forcing USD refunds on their earliest BTC customers while not communicating is not what I call doing 'the best they can'.

Not just to bump threads, but to shill for the company.

Paid shilling.

Mods, is that against forum rules?

Interesting picture. Wondering why there is blue cat5 cable going to the top but not connecting into anything.

Also why the front panels are hinged in opposite directions. That case doesn't hinge the front panel in that fashion. That case is definitely a corsair case, and the front panel doesn't hinge like that at all. Its more of a clip in panel that rests on the bottom. (not exact same case but panels should clip in the same)
See - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES2Z3jn5pgg&t=1m0s .

Maybe it's icebreakers, lol.