FWIW, I'm a huge fan of this approach: https://hashfast.com/design-of-the-rig/
Having as much as absolutely possible be an off-the-shelf part that anyone can order at any time is fantastic. What I'd love to see in addition to this blog post, though, is a detailed component manifest. I assume all parts except the ASIC chip itself and the board it's mounted on are off-the-shelf parts, and it'd be great to have a list of the production components available as soon as possible.
Additionally, as has been mentioned further back, it'd be great to understand exactly what would be necessary to mount the 2nd chip if the MMP comes into effect; eg, where do you we get the PCB for it? (forgive me if this was already answered; this thread got....long).
Topic: ► ► ►HashFast Endorsement - page 6. (Read 36924 times)
Stop replying to crumbs, people. My "Ignore" button doesn't work if you keep quoting him in replies!
EDIT: looks like you pre-took my advice:
Good call!
EDIT: looks like you pre-took my advice:
D&T,
you're absolutely right. crumbs on ignore. i'm glad to join everyone else.
you're absolutely right. crumbs on ignore. i'm glad to join everyone else.
Good call!
Hi Everyone,
We launched a blog today:
HashFast.com/blog
We launched a blog today:
HashFast.com/blog
And quoting the above since it seems like the crumbs debacle buried it.
D&T,
you're absolutely right. crumbs on ignore. i'm glad to join everyone else.
you're absolutely right. crumbs on ignore. i'm glad to join everyone else.
Nice. Good call.
D&T,
you're absolutely right. crumbs on ignore. i'm glad to join everyone else.
you're absolutely right. crumbs on ignore. i'm glad to join everyone else.
Crumbs is a ridiculous troll, who I have on ignore. However he is correct on this. While you could argue that BTC are goods, the best you could argue in that case is that when you sell them on an exchange, you increase the velocity of dollars in the economy. But you're not really increasing the velocity of bitcoin.
On the other hand, simply buying the miners in BTC would increase the velocity of bitcoin, since it would cause BTC that was tied up in wallets to be actually transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something. That would not be the case if they were purchased with dollars.
On the other hand, simply buying the miners in BTC would increase the velocity of bitcoin, since it would cause BTC that was tied up in wallets to be actually transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something. That would not be the case if they were purchased with dollars.
This. Although if you look through your entire thread most of it is long multi-page derails dealing with trolls. You will never (not even after delivery) convince crumbs (et all) that this a good deal. Fighting every naunce of their troll arguments defeats your entire goal. Either ignore them or put them on ignore so you are goaded into responding. You are doing exactly what they want.
As for crumbs allegation that sales in BTC "don't count" unless the entire supply chain is in BTC well that is just silly. It is about as useful as debating with someone who believes when the sun is up that is called "nighttime".
DeathAndTaxes, if you offer something more than a passing insult, i'd be glad to debate you, otherwise STFU, k?
once again, i disagree with what troll crumbs has to say.
by using BTC-only tx's, HF is encouraging/facilitating the use of BTC, and by doing so helping the Bitcoin economy.
by using BTC-only tx's, HF is encouraging/facilitating the use of BTC, and by doing so helping the Bitcoin economy.
You can disagree all you want, but now you've been caught in a dumb, boldface lie.
You've also been shown to know nothing about what you preach.
It's all right here, in this thread -- the Cliffsnotes of Cypherdoc fails.
Crumbs is a ridiculous troll, who I have on ignore. However he is correct on this. While you could argue that BTC are goods, the best you could argue in that case is that when you sell them on an exchange, you increase the velocity of dollars in the economy. But you're not really increasing the velocity of bitcoin.
On the other hand, simply buying the miners in BTC would increase the velocity of bitcoin, since it would cause BTC that was tied up in wallets to be actually transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something. That would not be the case if they were purchased with dollars.
On the other hand, simply buying the miners in BTC would increase the velocity of bitcoin, since it would cause BTC that was tied up in wallets to be actually transferred from one person to another, in exchange for something. That would not be the case if they were purchased with dollars.
This. If you look through your entire thread most of it is long multi-page derails dealing with trolls. You will never convince crumbs (et all) that this a good deal, not even after delivery, not even if the buyers end up +100% ROI. They aren't looking for information or answers to their questions. They are just looking to "win". Every possible answer you can give they will find a reason why that is bad, every rebuttal has another rebuttal. Fighting every nuance of their troll arguments defeats your entire goal to advocate and get information out on the product.
As for crumbs allegation that sales in BTC sales "don't count" unless the entire supply chain is in BTC well that is just silly. There are many countries where the supply chain can't be completed without the use of FOREX. Obviously the longer the supply chain is in BTC the better but ANY place to use BTC increases its utility. A goal of only using BTC when none of it is converted to another currency by the counter-party to cover non-BTC costs is a pointless standard anyways. Every merchants, every service accepting BTC improves its utility. The bitcoin economy won't just jump from nobody accepting it, to entire supplies chains being 100% BTC overnight.
Merchants accepting BTC is good for the utility of Bitcoin. If he doesn't get it, it simply is because he doesn't want to get it. He is just looking to prove your wrong and more you go down the stupid rabbit hole with him the more rope you give him. You could go another 500 pages and it doesn't really matter what you say they will just bounce around and look for another angle where you are wrong and drag you down into that minutiae. Either ignore them or put them on ignore so you are goaded into responding. You are doing exactly what they want. Plus most people have crumbs and his like on ignore anyways. All you quoted responses just give him an audience to people who were already ignoring him.
once again, i disagree with what troll crumbs has to say.
by using BTC-only tx's, HF is encouraging/facilitating the use of BTC, and by doing so helping the Bitcoin economy.
by using BTC-only tx's, HF is encouraging/facilitating the use of BTC, and by doing so helping the Bitcoin economy.
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*
who's lying?
who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?
Oh, please try harder
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
This argument is absurd on its face. The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.
The post that started it all ^^^^
Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?
EDIT: Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.
Learn how to lying
It is a good thing. Greater distribution of coins from the holders that traded their coins for miners.
At this point i'm simply waiting for an apology from Cypherdoc for lying without learning some skilz first.
lol! just b/c you say something doesn't make it true crumbs.
i may have to put you on ignore too.
You do that, Cypherdoc, but anyone bothering to read through this thread will know you to be not just a liar, but a horribly inept one.
If you're going to lie, at least get good at it
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*
who's lying?
who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?
Oh, please try harder
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
This argument is absurd on its face. The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.
The post that started it all ^^^^
Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?
EDIT: Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.
Learn how to lying
It is a good thing. Greater distribution of coins from the holders that traded their coins for miners.
At this point i'm simply waiting for an apology from Cypherdoc for lying without learning some skilz first.
lol! just b/c you say something doesn't make it true crumbs.
i may have to put you on ignore too.
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*
who's lying?
who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?
Oh, please try harder
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
This argument is absurd on its face. The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.
The post that started it all ^^^^
Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?
EDIT: Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.
Learn how to lying
It is a good thing. Greater distribution of coins from the holders that traded their coins for miners.
At this point i'm simply waiting for an apology from Cypherdoc for lying without learning some skilz first.
Yes, but why wouldn't you offer the facility for those that are entitled that kind of protection?
first of all, let's not forget it's them not me.
as a form of self protection from refund volatility. yes, it comes at the expense of some buyer protection.
but they've tried to make up for it at the backend with the full refund policy and the MPP. my guess is that they also only want true believers in what they're doing.
Admit to lying plzox, Cypher
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*
who's lying?
who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?
Oh, please try harder
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
This argument is absurd on its face. The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.
The post that started it all ^^^^
Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?
EDIT: Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.
Learn how to lying
It is a good thing. Greater distribution of coins from the holders that traded their coins for miners.
Yes, but why wouldn't you offer the facility for those that are entitled that kind of protection?
first of all, let's not forget it's them not me.
as a form of self protection from refund volatility. yes, it comes at the expense of some buyer protection.
but they've tried to make up for it at the backend with the full refund policy and the MPP. my guess is that they also only want true believers in what they're doing.
the problem with what you're saying is that you're thinking of BTC as purely a form of currency. many of us already know that the definition of what BTC is differs. many think of BTC itself as a "good" or "asset". they don't view it purely as a means of transacting. they view it as an investment with the potential to grow in value and act as a store of value.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/19/germany-recognizes-bitcoin-as-private-money-sales-tax-coming-soon/
So? I use bitcoin as an investment and a savings account. Sometimes I buy goods with it. Sometimes I send money to relatives in developing countries using it. It's not just a currency.
LOL are you serious, I honestly can't tell.
Let me reword your sentence to see if it helps you understand what you are trying to say.
Quote
So? I use fiat as an investment and a savings account. Sometimes I buy goods with it. Sometimes I send money to relatives in developing countries using it. It's not just a currency.
I do not see holding USD as an investment. Maybe in Argentina. Bitcoin is not simply currency because I use it as an investment and a way to transcend traditional financial barriers. Is land a currency? Is a stock a currency? Is an ETF a currency?
Is gold JUST a currency, or is it more?
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
It is bad for the economy, because the more scam-laden the community becomes,
1. Increasing number of persons of integrity involved with BTC *leave*
2. the more governments will meddle into bitcoin.
Both hurt the bitcoin economy.
Hashfast, through their bitcoin only policy, appear to position themselves for a BFL styled Long Con.
(or a Yifu styled Long Con)
If Hashfast truly cared for bitcoin, it would look after the community as much as themselves. Then again, that is just plain old Customer Service, right?
I find it difficult to believe that Hashfast thinks that purposefully taking away any and all consumer protections from their customers, is somehow good for the economy.
Might be time for another area of studies.
(items in between * * added)
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*
who's lying?
who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?
Oh, please try harder
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
the only counterpoint i'd make is that HF, by only accepting BTC, has demonstrated a restraint to NOT bring in as much money via pre-orders as the other companies seem not to be able to resist by using cc/pp. they also do want to help the BTC economy by doing it this way. it allows BTC to circulate and change hands to buy real products, not just Alpaca socks.
...
This argument is absurd on its face. The BTC will be immediately cashed out to fiat, to pay for expenses, development & production.
If that's "circulation," simply cash out your BTC to credit card yourself, then pay with your credit card.
It makes no difference to the bitcoin economy who cashes out bitcoins, you or HashFast.
Cypherdoc, if you're going to spin, step up your game.
The post that started it all ^^^^
Do you want me to go through the thread & put some context on the quote you've pulled out?
EDIT: Full quote that you stripped from content:
More BTC on the order books *needing to be sold* is a bad thing, Cypherdoc.
Learn how to lying
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*
who's lying?
who put in big bold lettering somewhere above "Bad Thing"?
crumbs, let us not forget your original supposition.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
you said that b/c HF was using BTC-only tx's, this was BAD for the Bitcoin economy.
this is wrong.
stay on track please.
No. Now you're simply lying.
You said that HashFast was helping the bitcoin economy by only allowing bitcoin transactions. I said that it was not.
Don't make me dig through the thread & pull the quote.
Try to be honest in cases where your lying will be *immediately exposed.*
I mean *minutes.*