Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 441. (Read 880461 times)

Get ignored much nemesis? Glow ignore button, glow yellow mooar please. Pretty soon you'll be talking to yourself on this board. But, i wonder... will the inner troll in you seeking attention so badly need to recreate another acct soon? Or are you so egocentric that you'll keep using this account even though everyone in the forum has you on ignore? Eh, its rhetorical at this point since i wont ever need to see you post again.  Ain't technology grand? Now only if only hashfast could work as well as the ignore button.

That sounds like a challenge, and if it was Hashfast that issued it, I'd get to work.  

But it's only some little small-brained pedant board troll who doesn't understand that you can put whatever the fuck you want in 70 pages of click-wrap, declare the moon to be made of green cheese, and exert a right to a blowjob from your daughter, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable, either in law or in public opinion and perception of the business selling the product.

We'll see when the time comes.

where can I sign up for being paid to be a sockpuppet?

FTFY.

@perezoso, i don't completely agree with you, but you should be able to tell the paid suckpoppet in this thread by now

LOL noobs still think MPP is a ROI guarantee clause....... amazing how stupid ppl are. Right from beginning many members here and I already said MPP is just a fancy term to sell more hashrate.

Good luck to all the idiots who plan to take legal action.

The point is there is no mention of the MPP in the ToS.  There will be no 'litigation' surrounding the MPP.  They made no promise, nor guarantee that you will ever achieve a BTC -> BTC ROI.  For someone who stated they destroy companies like this for a living you should know better.

What's your point?  

You can go read the MPP yourself if you are confused about it.  

When i wrote it i was fully hoping in it, it was happening. No crash for now, you are right. Too bad.

Interesting thought.  Could you point out the MPP clause in the ToS you accepted when purchasing?

Minternj is right on the money.  The kind of statements he is citing, and the overarching commitment of the MPP are exactly why I invested in the 1st batch, and exactly why Hashfast is going to have a big fat fucking problem if they don't rectify the situation for MPP customers.

I also bought an upgrade, which will never ROI, but I'm not complaining about that.  It was at-risk, not under the MPP pledge.

But... the way they have structured it, we just have to wait and see.  Maybe they make their 1st batch customers whole, maybe they don't.  I still wanna hope that they are good guys, although Ninja is scaring me considering his flip-flop from the positive attitude he had after visiting them.

I was saying weeks ago, and am still pretty sure, that if there's any litigation here, it's going to be about the MPP, not delivery dates per se, especially in view of statements about being 'on track' and whatnot.

But still... we have to wait and see.  Maybe they will do right.

If they have a decent order book going forward (who knows) and have kept some BTC, I still wonder if they might not collect enough cancellation requests to refund Cedivad and others that want it, and use those chips (we're only talking 550 or something total) to ship faster machines for remaining batch 1 orders.

I don't know if I'd call US $676 a "crash".  More like minor correction.

Yes but how do you know that they have the substrate ready and that they already made the complete chip? I agree with you that since that some wafers usually comes out from TSMC faster and such, they should almost have a working prototype.

However there is no trace of such a prototype, there are only NDAs that forbids us from seeing pics of those PCBs, so i keep supposing that they don't exists yet. And this is where my castle of cards fails. Because trust me, i would love to believe that i will see back what i gave to HF!

"2 teams" that can't make a suitable substrate during the last month? Impossible if you ask me. We will know when the hashrate spikes, anyway.

The only positive news of the day is the crash of the BTC value, this way we will se our miners sooner.

Well, of course, it's not all my money or anything.  It just represents a retrospective loss.  You kind of have to hedge against the market with mining gear to ensure a continual profit with BTC, since you never know which way it's gonna go.

End of the day Josh, it's still a loss in terms of BTC, but you can't predict what mining hardware companies will do these days and so you make a gamble, the same as you do on the blockchain.

I'm still way into the black overall this year, so I'm not really concerned.  I think myself and the others would just have liked a little more transparency to make informed business decisions upon.

I'm kind of happy that at least we get silence from them though, as it's not a BFL forum party full of "two weeks!" announcements.  I'm hoping they're working hard to get everything out the door.

Once you have the chip on substrate there's nothing else to really do but test it... Pretty much as soon as the bitfury chips were taped out and in bitfury's hand they were stuck in a board and evaluated for function.  These are supposed to be direct FPGA ports from what I understand, and so they should already have to means to test them and figure out if they need to be respun etc.

John is a salesman it's his business to say nice things, especially about a company which Hashfast will be increasingly compared to.  If people were comparing HF to a cowpie he'd be telling you he thinks there is a strong case for their nutritional value.  If he really thought it through he would realize that BFL's situation with their customers is a lot different than the one HF finds themselves in for two reasons.  

    1. BFL's products were, for the most part, less expensive than HF's products making the costs of a potential lawsuit prohibitive compared to the customer's loss.

    2. BFL took payment in US Dollars via methods for which there are well established dispute resolution mechanisms.  People did get refunds from BFL they just didn't have to go to court to do it.  HF on the other hand only accepted wires or BTC payments so given that they are ignoring customers reasonable requests there is no other outlet.  Throw in the appreciating BTC price and suddenly the risk / reward equation of hiring a lawyer changes for anyone who paid in BTC.

It's also worth pointing out that just because there wen't any actual BFL lawsuits doesn't mean no one ever hired a lawyer to pursue BFL it just means BFL was smart and didn't let threats get out of hand to the point of an actual lawsuit.  If some sort of settlement did happen between BFL and an unsatisfied customer it's unlikely it would ever be publicly disclosed.

Avalon definitely wasn't a success for the chip group buys.

KnC at least shipped (almost, but not quite) on time. ROI in BTC is pretty questionable though.

The only real success was actually bitfury. I've sold almost everything, but out of all the devices I was involved in group buys for / bought directly, the only one that shipped as scheduled was a burnin bitburner fury.

scotjam

EDIT: oh, and of course ASICMiner kit all shipped on time, but who would buy that at the prices they were charging???
EDIT2: and of course BFL have taken 7 months or more to ship something that they sold with a "2 months or more" lead time. Funny to see inaba posting in this thread above.

We gotta fix that. Completely screwed. This is what we are. Completely.

This is what worries me most. Whenever HF retreats to BTC price, they show they are short term company. They wrote the god damned MPP, so they understand perfectly well the concept of BTC ROI. Mentioning BTC/US$ ratio shows they are satisfied with taking the money and ending like Yifu. Company that does that will behave differently than company committed to last long, and may do things that were not expected.

Scouts honor.

Did he say scouts honor?   Or was it just a pinky shake?