HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 262.

1l1l11ll1l

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 10:12:28 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 09:59:02 PM

Quote from: AussieHash on January 07, 2014, 09:33:31 PM

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 08:50:45 PM

In other news: It appears my refund request by certified mail has bounced. "undeliverable"

Can this thread now officially be renamed as SCAM

That wasn't either of the two addresses I had for them. The two I had were:

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC
97 Second Street #175
San Jose, CA 95113
United States

and

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Oh thanks for that. I thought they moved out of their San Jose office, as well as their temp Nextspace office so I figured the San Francisco one I got at http://www.bizapedia.com/ca/HASHFAST-TECHNOLOGIES-LLC.html was correct.

It would really help if HashFast would put their current address on their website.

I will try 100 Bush Street and report back.

Send to both, CC never hurt no one ;-)

http://youtu.be/1dc1eKHgy_o

pmorici

sr. member

Activity: 479

Merit: 250

Quote from: BeepBeep2 on January 07, 2014, 10:20:00 PM

I'm sure they are moving on purpose...

Here's what I got for 649 Mission Street-
http://jonesdevoy.com/

They were never located at 649 Mission Street. That is their lawyer's address.

http://scounsel.com/contact-us/

BeepBeep2

full member

Activity: 184

Merit: 100

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 10:12:28 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 09:59:02 PM

Quote from: AussieHash on January 07, 2014, 09:33:31 PM

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 08:50:45 PM

In other news: It appears my refund request by certified mail has bounced. "undeliverable"

Can this thread now officially be renamed as SCAM

That wasn't either of the two addresses I had for them. The two I had were:

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC
97 Second Street #175
San Jose, CA 95113
United States

and

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Oh thanks for that. I thought they moved out of their San Jose office, as well as their temp Nextspace office so I figured the San Francisco one I got at http://www.bizapedia.com/ca/HASHFAST-TECHNOLOGIES-LLC.html was correct.

The address on my invoice lists yet another address: HashFast, 1060 Gilman, San Francisco, CA 94124
So they are all over the place. It would really help if HashFast would put their current address on their website.

I will try 100 Bush Street and report back.

I'm sure they are moving on purpose...

Here's what I got for 649 Mission Street-
http://jonesdevoy.com/

ninjarobot

hero member

Activity: 761

Merit: 500

Mine Silent, Mine Deep

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 09:59:02 PM

That wasn't either of the two addresses I had for them. The two I had were:

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC
97 Second Street #175
San Jose, CA 95113
United States

and

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

Oh thanks for that. I thought they moved out of their San Jose office, as well as their temp Nextspace office so I figured the San Francisco one I got at http://www.bizapedia.com/ca/HASHFAST-TECHNOLOGIES-LLC.html was correct. (also mentioned earlier here)

The address on my invoice lists yet another address: HashFast, 1060 Gilman, San Francisco, CA 94124
So they are all over the place. It would really help if HashFast would put their current address on their website.

I will try 100 Bush Street and report back.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4326

Merit: 8951

Quote from: AussieHash on January 07, 2014, 09:33:31 PM

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 08:50:45 PM

In other news: It appears my refund request by certified mail has bounced. "undeliverable"

Can this thread now officially be renamed as SCAM

That wasn't either of the two addresses I had for them. The two I had were:

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC
97 Second Street #175
San Jose, CA 95113
United States

and

Quote

HashFast Technologies LLC (“HashFast”)
100 Bush Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, California 94104, United States

fenwick

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: GalaxyASIC on January 07, 2014, 07:41:21 PM

The other lawyers I spoke with are more experienced with BTC but wanted retainer and be paid on hourly bases, while Ray's 40% is high, that is only 40% above current offer of $5,600 USD. Also, issue is not as much BTC related as contract related to be paid back in a form we paid which was in BTC. So I think that it's a safer choice. If I get in the end $5,600 I keep it and anything above it I keep 60%. Also there is a possibility that lawyer would be awarded fees separately from our award and in that case I keep 100%.

It is more preferable to me to not send good money after bad and I am willing to keep 5,600 + 60% than put additional $10k in retainer on a line.

While all of the above is true, I think it does not convey the situation faithfully.

You see, I did not chose Ray Gallo for the case because his offer is affordable; I chose him because he is an expert in consumer fraud and class/mass actions, having win 85% of his cases, and recovered >$100M USD in similar cases.

This is why I think it's a good idea to go with him, and not because he is the only one we can afford. (Which might also be true, but ultimately, besides the point.)

AussieHash

hero member

Activity: 692

Merit: 500

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 08:50:45 PM

In other news: It appears my refund request by certified mail has bounced. "undeliverable"

Can this thread now officially be renamed as SCAM

Flying Hellfish

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1757

Verified Bernie Bro - Feel The Bern!

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 08:46:06 PM

Morici v Hashfast Technologies
Case5:14-cv-00087

http://198.27.67.106/hashfast.pdf

What a fantastic read, soooo much win in there, finally we get to see these morons who think using customer money as start up investments is a good idea get a lesson in reality. It's about fucking time!

I sure hope this opens the flood gates on these manufacture's, I am constantly astonished by the fact that so many people can not understand a simple fact. When you take a CUSTOMERS money before you ship a product they have the RIGHT to receive a refund any time for ANY reason they want. What these manufacture's have been doing to you poor miners is criminal and it's about fucking time some one who was burned pulled their finger out of their ass and showed them!

Minor Miner

legendary

Activity: 2478

Merit: 1020

Be A Digital Miner

Quote from: Entropy-uc on January 07, 2014, 08:58:31 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 08:46:06 PM

Morici v Hashfast Technologies
Case5:14-cv-00087
http://198.27.67.106/hashfast.pdf

detrimental reliance. Grin

making promises in a public forum that lead to financial decisions can result in liability attaching, and damages being owed.
Josh, you'd better implement your plans to evade process servers now.

I do not know anyone named Josh, but that Inaba guy probably has more to worry about from the Feds considering many of his posts about "hosting money printing machines so you can avoid paying taxes in your homeland" sound like federal crimes that the USA is not amused about anymore.
The DPR case clearly stated that federal agents have be on bitcointalk since 2011, monitoring, engaging and building cases. I find it hard to believe that they will ignore this Inaba's posts as he made himself such a focus by acting the ass constantly.

1l1l11ll1l

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1000

Quote from: -ck on January 07, 2014, 04:59:26 PM

Quote from: ninjarobot on January 07, 2014, 03:29:57 PM

Would be great to get an update from the few folks with engineering samples (LukeJr & IceDrill) as to how the hardware performs.

I helped icedrill get his up and running and fixed a few obvious cgminer bugs that only showed up with real hardware especially when it misbehaved (the changes went into git master). He had a 3 module unit. One module was completely dead and had to be disconnected or it wouldn't fire up. One module would overheat and trip the code that disables it almost immediately unless it was run at 20% speed. The final module ran stable at ~420GH. There's only so much debugging I can do remotely on the code without the hardware myself, but there are still bugs in the code preventing it running stable for more than a few hours at a time, but that does appear to be software related. The one working module appears to work quite well at that speed. I know there were a couple of board revisions and I suspect there may have been one more (revision) in the works but not really sure which boards went to icedrill.

I doubt very much these early engineering samples hand assembled are a sign of what the final product will be like, but perhaps that last module is a better indicator. I don't know anything about his power consumption.

Quote from: HashFast_CL on December 13, 2013, 09:03:32 PM

Quote from: ASIC-K on December 13, 2013, 08:48:12 PM

eh, you are no KNC.....

That's true...

HashFast's chips are about 3 times more powerful when compared on a GH per sq.mm basis.

HashFast is shipping with top-shelf quality Sea Sonic PSUs, so our customers won't have to put up with exploding/self-immolating units like KNC's did.

In addition, HashFast lined up an exclusive with CIARA, which means HashFast machines will be assembled and shipped with utmost expediency (no random guys helping load some random van), in professional/durable packaging.

That means double-walled boxes, so HashFast customers' hardware won't arrive broken like so much of KNC's did.

Finally, (again unlike KNC) HashFast has been working closely with ckolivas for a long time to ensure cgminer works flawlessly with our innovative new GN Protocol, Global Work Queue, etc.

Entropy-uc

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 08:46:06 PM

Morici v Hashfast Technologies
Case5:14-cv-00087

http://198.27.67.106/hashfast.pdf

detrimental reliance. Grin

making promises in a public forum that lead to financial decisions can result in liability attaching, and damages being owed.

Josh, you'd better implement your plans to evade process servers now.

pmorici

sr. member

Activity: 479

Merit: 250

Looks like the first of the articles about Bitcoin mining hardware companies at CES are coming out.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/7/5285242/the-bleeding-edge-in-bitcoin-mining-hardware-comes-to-ces

Quote

Another competitor, HashFast, just started shipping its ultra-fast Baby Jet rigs in late December.

ninjarobot

hero member

Activity: 761

Merit: 500

Mine Silent, Mine Deep

Quote from: gmaxwell on January 07, 2014, 08:46:06 PM

Morici v Hashfast Technologies
Case5:14-cv-00087

http://198.27.67.106/hashfast.pdf

And so it begins.

In other news: It appears my refund request by certified mail has bounced. "undeliverable"

In addition, my refund request to [email protected] was closed without response:

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4326

Merit: 8951

Morici v Hashfast Technologies
Case5:14-cv-00087

http://198.27.67.106/hashfast.pdf

GalaxyASIC

full member

Activity: 130

Merit: 100

My Update:
I was also on a conference call with a lawyer (Ray) and I am inclined to become his client. The other lawyers I spoke with are more experienced with BTC but wanted retainer and be paid on hourly bases, while Ray's 40% is high, that is only 40% above current offer of $5,600 USD. Also, issue is not as much BTC related as contract related to be paid back in a form we paid which was in BTC. So I think that it's a safer choice. If I get in the end $5,600 I keep it and anything above it I keep 60%. Also there is a possibility that lawyer would be awarded fees separately from our award and in that case I keep 100%.

It is more preferable to me to not send good money after bad and I am willing to keep 5,600 + 60% than put additional $10k in retainer on a line.

If you would like to be represented by a same lawyer I recommend you contact him ASAP yourself.
http://www.gallo-law.com/attorneys/gallo.html

fenwick

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Quote from: ImI on January 07, 2014, 06:19:48 PM

most likely a legal thing. icedrill as a big customer could very well be a dangerous opponent when it comes to legal actions. its much harder to form such a unit out of single customers.

Sure, it's much harder, but we can still try to do exactly that. (And after today's conference call, I would say that it's going as well as it can be reasonably expected, given the circumstances.)

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

http://www.quora.com/Eduardo-de-Castro answered ONLY one question on Quora on 22 Aug, 2012: http://www.quora.com/How-much-does-charging-a-Tesla-Model-S-cost

Let's see who else answered the same question, shall we?

Quote

Adam Ettinger, Counselor to Silicon Valley Entrepreneurs

Votes by Rich Shane, Jeffrey C. Jacobs, and Abhijit Gore.

As both Joe and Jeffrey point out, it depends on when and from where you are getting your electricity. They missed one option: getting you kWh from your own solar panels. This this will reduce your cost further. How much depends on whether you lease or purchase your solar power system (e.g. from Solar City) and the tax incentives in your area. Solar panels would have saved Joe from paying peak kWh prices. However, it would not have saved Joe from driving around in a Volt.

Suggest Edits
Upvote • 1 Comment • Share • Thank • Report • 15 Aug, 2012

Which begs the question: How fuckin' big is Long Dong Johnson's bed there in his The Sierra condo?

PuertoLibre

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1003

Okay, time for looking at my imaginary crystal ball:

We know that HF had PCB issues. (confirmed as we all know)

Some of the ?demo? units sent to a customer appear to be running only partially. I can either speculate it is damaged during shipping (which would not be a good sign) or it was sent to a customer as the best working thing they had at the time.

(Probably also not a good sign.)

---------------------------

We know they are saying "they are working on it" (paraphrased). So I am left to assume that something is sufficiently wrong with their design that they aren't wasting chips and have closed the doors to new sales. (until recently, apparently.)

Best guess, at the earliest, they will ship sometime in the fifth week of January. (Inaba-isms)

Or

They have real trouble.

So what does their twitter feed say? Or are they avoiding that too?

bitcoinarnold

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

colin thanks for responding, do you know what the power draw was on one of these guys?

Thanks.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

I just thought of something funny. What if, because of all the recent rage with HashFast, John Skrodenis started a company named Marketrage LLC. Don't you think that would be so fuckin' funny? I think so, hence suggesting it. But, what are the odds of him doing such: 1:1; 10:1; 100:1?

Oh well! Back to a huntin'. BTW, for those who still take the short bus to and fro, don't bother Googling Marketrage LLC, for there's probably nothing to see there, at least I don't think. Roll Eyes

Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 262. (Read 880816 times)