HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: up to 800GH/s - page 10.

HashFast_CL

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

HashFast Community Liaison

Quote from: cedivad on March 12, 2014, 04:44:34 AM

If HF_CL fails at calming down the community newly created accounts of people knowing the law better than our lawyers arrive to the rescue.
Posted from asd, ref#NN3YE2pVR8l1X4iz

I'd like to propose a new drinking game for the forum.

Everytime cedivad comes on here and mentions his lawyer, you take a shot.

If cedivad mentions his lawyer *and* boasts about his overweening absolute confidence in a court victory, you take two shots.

If cedivad says something on-topic (IE about HashFast's 750GH/s EVO) take three shots, but don't worry because that *never* happens! Cheesy

perezoso

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: BTCInvestorPro on March 12, 2014, 04:08:45 PM

Quote from: MANofthePEOPLE on March 12, 2014, 03:31:36 PM

Is it true that Hashfast_CL is also behind market leaders such as CTSminers and PhotonicMining?

No, PhotonicMining is way to well done to be related to HashFast their website scrolls for starters and it is a creative scam. HashFast is just a BFL scam clone ripoff.

Stop insulting Josh. He may be a scammer, but he's way smarter and his company has been way more successful than Hashfast.

BTCInvestorPro

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Quote from: MANofthePEOPLE on March 12, 2014, 03:31:36 PM

Is it true that Hashfast_CL is also behind market leaders such as CTSminers and PhotonicMining?

No, PhotonicMining is way to well done to be related to HashFast their website scrolls for starters and it is a creative scam. HashFast is just a BFL scam clone ripoff.

MANofthePEOPLE

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

Is it true that Hashfast_CL is also behind market leaders such as CTSminers and PhotonicMining?

dopamine

hero member

Activity: 486

Merit: 500

First sign is not to deal with this company is all the unhappy customers and undelivered products and changes to their TOS.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

I remember the joined PR from Uniquity stating that the silicon was expected in October. And that they were ahead of what was scheduled.
Posted from * - #WVvPy6uKM7OxNvFP

dropt

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cedivad on March 11, 2014, 06:01:47 PM

Quote from: dropt on March 11, 2014, 05:50:24 PM

They knew in September they were going to receive their first Silicon in November. It was posted in a Uniquity/HF interview in a random news article.
There's so much garbage out there when it comes to HF so I've been unlucky in finding it again, but it is out there.

I really don't remember it. Are you talking about the "crashing in a wall" article? It's the only one i remember.

Gonna read that again (i have it on my sent emails, quite sure of it).
Posted from asd, ref#FgVV2ZhruU7MVczU

No, I'm not sure what the "crashing in a wall" article is. IIRC the person who stated that Silicon was expected in Nov was a spokesman for Uniquity. Or, rather, I did not recognize the name as one of those associated with HF.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 09:32:43 AM

We also don't prosecute people in the US for breach of contract.

And it doesn't meant that the Executive Directors @ HashFast won't be persecuted.
Posted from * - #5LSkJWOw5qV3rCTK

Clobered09

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: itod on March 12, 2014, 04:53:33 AM

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 01:15:48 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:04:27 AM

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

The key concept is bolded, parties agreed otherwise by accepting the HashFast TOS. In that TOS HashFast written themselves the obligation to refund in BTC. How can this be illegal? Why Avalon (US registered company) was not prosecuted for refunding in BTC?

The terms you have highlighted include both agree and execute, if there's been full execution, there wouldn't be any complaining, the transaction is completed. We also don't prosecute people in the US for breach of contract.

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

Yes, they have their own original way of rising VC capital.

Do you feel like a VC?
Posted from * - #wNPTUZaSa3FoXlV3

BTCInvestorPro

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Quote from: cedivad on March 12, 2014, 07:11:20 AM

Quote from: defcon23 on March 12, 2014, 07:07:16 AM

same here cedivad .... totaly incredible ... how can they propose new product and take preorders again when they failled to deliver batch one MPP ?? Huh

It must have something to do with the 15 millions they claimed to have raised back in December.
Posted from asd, ref#nJ0E2RpKe6EFyY78

You must mean the $15 Million they stole from customers and then wrecked their car when trying to get away by gunning it into a brick wall.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-09/bitcoin-mining-chips-gear-computing-groups-competition-heats-up#p3

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

Quote from: defcon23 on March 12, 2014, 07:07:16 AM

same here cedivad .... totaly incredible ... how can they propose new product and take preorders again when they failled to deliver batch one MPP ?? Huh

It must have something to do with the 15 millions they claimed to have raised back in December.
Posted from asd, ref#nJ0E2RpKe6EFyY78

defcon23

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cedivad on March 06, 2014, 07:43:08 PM

I can't believe what i'm reading.
Posted from asd, ref#8rwZq8qK6e3fzs6Z

same here cedivad .... totaly incredible ... how can they propose new product and take preorders again when they failled to deliver batch one MPP ?? Huh

and how could they blame cointerra ? pffffff

DONT BUY ANYTHING FROM HASHFAST

itod

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 1077

Honey badger just does not care

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 01:15:48 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:04:27 AM

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

The key concept is bolded, parties agreed otherwise by accepting the HashFast TOS. In that TOS HashFast written themselves the obligation to refund in BTC. How can this be illegal? Why Avalon (US registered company) was not prosecuted for refunding in BTC?

cedivad

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

If HF_CL fails at calming down the community newly created accounts of people knowing the law better than our lawyers arrive to the rescue.
Posted from asd, ref#NN3YE2pVR8l1X4iz

jimmothy

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 01:32:03 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:25:06 AM

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 01:15:48 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:04:27 AM

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

It is no doubt a complicated legal situation. However the fact that HF promised full btc refunds and changed their mind later when the value of btc went up is without a doubt bullshit. Considering many people only ordered with hashfast because of these terms along with a supposed guaranteed refund if delays extended past dec 31 which they did.

I doubt that the US law protects btc consumers from this type of BS even though some have apparently sued BFL for their btc and won(although don't think they collected)

It's definitely bullshit, and that's why the law doesn't let them say "we're paying you USD value from when you first gave us the btc." They have to pay at the current USD market value for btc if they're going to pay in USD.

Could you point me to where the law says this?

I still think one could make a good argument for their original btc amount. If someone paid in euros and the value of euros against usd increased would they not still be entitled to a full refund of original amount of euros even if specifically stated in the contract?

Clobered09

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:25:06 AM

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 01:15:48 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:04:27 AM

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

It is no doubt a complicated legal situation. However the fact that HF promised full btc refunds and changed their mind later when the value of btc went up is without a doubt bullshit. Considering many people only ordered with hashfast because of these terms along with a supposed guaranteed refund if delays extended past dec 31 which they did.

I doubt that the US law protects btc consumers from this type of BS even though some have apparently sued BFL for their btc and won(although don't think they collected)

It's definitely bullshit, and that's why the law doesn't let them say "we're paying you USD value from when you first gave us the btc." They have to pay at the current USD market value for btc if they're going to pay in USD.

jimmothy

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 01:15:48 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:04:27 AM

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

It is no doubt a complicated legal situation. However the fact that HF promised full btc refunds and changed their mind later when the value of btc went up is without a doubt bullshit. Considering many people only ordered with hashfast because of these terms along with a supposed guaranteed refund if delays extended past dec 31 which they did.

I doubt that the US law protects btc consumers from this type of BS even though some have apparently sued BFL for their btc and won(although don't think they collected)

Clobered09

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 01:04:27 AM

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Perhaps morally so, and perhaps in some non-US jurisdictions (and maybe a state or two that has wildly different laws on contractual remedies), but in nearly every US state, the remedy for a violation of a contractual duty to deliver a fungible good is the market value of that good at breach, and unless the parties agree and execute otherwise, that remedy is in legal tender.

jimmothy

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 12:57:35 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 12, 2014, 12:34:13 AM

Quote from: Clobered09 on March 12, 2014, 12:22:37 AM

Quote from: jimmothy on March 11, 2014, 04:08:48 PM

As per US law, bitcoins are not legal tender and thus you are breaking the law by accepting them.

Hahaha, and here I thought your response to me on the Havelock thread was a funny as someone could get! Legal tender is an obligation satisfaction concept in the US, it doesn't define the panoply of property you can accept in trade. You can accept anything you wish as satisfaction of an obligation in the US, so long as it is not expressly prohibited to do so (for instance, most countries would prohibit sex, cocaine, or untaxed alcohol as payment, all the fun stuff), and you can refuse anything you want if you haven't yet incurred the obligation (a store clerk doesn't have to take your $100 in pennies in exchange for those 10 bottles of cheap vodka you want, but if you already bought those bottles on credit with the store, they have to take the $100 in pennies as satisfaction of the debt). Is there a website somewhere that supplies people with crazy, childish concepts about the law or something? I don't know where you people get your interpretations.

Not sure what you have against me but I actually do agree with you.

My point was that hashfast argument that all refunds must be in usd is bogus. Either btc is legal tender and they are obligated to refund full payment amount in btc or it is not legal tender in which case they were breaking the supposed law by accepting btc payments in the first place.

Your weird defenses of your claim that Havelock is an have been a registered exchange in Panama are what I was laughing at. I was just going through your posts, I didn't really look at Hashfasts argument. S/he's certainly wrong that refunds MUST be in USD, but it's also not true that they are obligated to refund in btc, or at least not completely true. They have two choices in the US (this actually varies by state, but most have adopted the relevant provisions of the UCC, so it's pretty much the same), they can refund in the medium that was provided (btc), or they can refund the USD equivalent market value of the medium at the time of tender. The time of tender is the time at which the obligee (that's you) is in a position to accept or reject what the obligor has offered in satisfaction. In other words, they either have to give you back the btc, or give you back the USD at current market value. They don't get back-date.

No they are obligated to give full btc refunds because it was specifically stated in the ToS and also confirmed in an email to support staff.

Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: up to 800GH/s - page 10. (Read 29887 times)