My takeaway from this statement is that they now concede that they advertised the machine as suitable for 'all scrypt applications' but are trying to obfuscate the fact that they also advertised it as being suitable for 'all scrypt applications at a minimum of 300 mh/s.
The 'Litecoin-miner'v'scrypt miner' is clearly bullshit when for most of the year all you ever see them promote is: "our first product dedicated to scrypt mining." with no mention of something they later attempted to call a 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner'. I imagine if their lawyer asked them to show him evidence of how they promoted this device, he would have told them to drop this absurd claim because the evidence to the contrary is damning.
There are two issues at play here, one of them a classic KnC spin, the other being the cold hard truth which is supported by evidence.
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-7919th March 2014
"Minimum 100/MH/s of performance"If your order is dated around this time, prior to their next announcement, they will hold you to an expectation of 100Mh/s. Any complaint you make about the Titan unit suffering from performance issues or limitations, has to compare to this minimum spec. You can't complain about it mining your scrypt target at even a single digit above 100Mh/s when it arrived, because that would be faster than the advertised minimum speed and any subsequent speed improvement they announce has their devious little 'gift' to their existing customers of awarding said performance increase 'free'. Meaning you paid for 100Mh/s and anything above that is not a contracted part of the sale.
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-8027th March 2014
"the minimum specification of Titan will be 250 MH/s. "If your order is dated after this point, you can clearly assert that your decision to commit to buying this device was on the basis that the minimum performance speed they clearly specified is 250Mh/s. The performance increase that has been announced is not 'free' to you because your decision to buy involved you comparing the price with the newly-announced minimum specification. You did not get your 'free gift' until they later bumped up the spec to 300Mh/s and you are all better off for that fact because now you *can* hold KnC to that 250Mh/s performance minimum.
Although, if a failure of the unit to mine at or above this speed was due to hardware issues unique to your specific machine, this is considered a fault and KnC have the right to attempt to repair this fault that has occurred in your unit.If, however, the failure of the unit to function properly applied to all Titans and was only resolved, if it has been, by a subsequent firmware release and KnC were aware of this limitation on its use before they shipped your order to you, then they have not shipped you the product you paid for, they have not shipped you the product that they promised to deliver in return for your money, therefore, they are not entitled to keep screeching their beloved phrase, "The Titan is a No Refund product", because what they have shipped you is not a Titan at that point, it is a 'not-quite-a-Titan' which, whilst they *might* be able to refuse order cancellations while they are manufacturing it and nobody is aware of the performance limitations, absolutely ceases to be their entitlement when they are demonstrably aware of inherent performance limitations but ship the units anyway.
Example:
1. KnC have not despatched your order yet but existing users are citing serious performance problems, prompting KnC to make announcements and forum posts saying that they are attempting to resolve these issues by designing and releasing new firmware, which means they have confirmed at that point they know the Titan has limitations on its use which were not disclosed at the time of sale.
This is where they should have done the right thing and declared that people could cancel their orders if they wished to do so while they completed the specified build of the Titan, instead of digging themselves in even deeper and showing themselves to be, well, we all know what they are in this regards.
Customers who attempted to cancel their order after KnC confirmed the unit was not able to perform as promised at the time of sale and cited that as one of the reasons for their cancellation, are legally entitled to cancel and KnC are obligated to refund the money paid in full due to an essential breach of contract, namely, shipping a device which is not yet fully manufactured and, as a result, suffers from performance restrictions.
2. KnC had already despatched your order but it can be proven they were aware of the limitation on use that they intended to address after delivering it to you.
Whilst there is evidence literally littering the place, concerning KnC's awareness of the limitations this unit had after they reached the hands of their customers, when it comes to proving they were aware of it prior to shipping, well, that would need to be argued, if KnC attempted to claim they were not, as a failure on their part to properly test that the machine could perform as fully as originally promised at the time of sale. You could argue the case that, if it is assumed they were aware of the problem, the above 'not-quite-a-Titan' shipping of a known-to-be-limited-in-performance breach of contract applies but, for that matter, if KnC attempted to claim they did not know of these performance limitations, you could assert breach of contract due to their failure to properly test that the unit could, indeed, perform as well as promised at the time of sale.
BUT, whichever conditions appear to apply for you as a customer, there is always one over-riding fact they cannot dodge:
Even, for arguments sake, if the device were only being evaluated as a Litecoin-miner, the fact it could not mine on Litecoin's p2pool when such a limitation was certainly never declared at the time of sale, no matter whether KnC tested for every fast-block-coin or profit-switching-multipool in existence, KnC's failure to ship the Titan in a condition to function properly on this pool above all else, would render them guilty of knowingly shipping it in this condition or, equally as bad, being so incompetent that they didn't even test it on p2pool before they shipped.So, KnC, which is it?
I look forward to your inevitable next word-salad announcement attempt to avoid accepting the truth which is fully supported by evidence, particularly evidence which your firm emailed to people in response to specific questions, giving explicit confirmations about known performance limitations.
Just in case you're still not sure KnC, check your outgoing email records for an evidential example: Anna (kncminer) Oct 30 08:32
