Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com - page 170. (Read 3049514 times)

I have had it answered, but it always goes to voicemail now.

this.

considering that at the time of purchase, KNC were one of the large players in the h/w market (still are) and to commit to mining with their current % of the network hashrate, buyers would have had to seriously consider the viability of their investment.

"KNC - IN COMPETITION WITH OUR CUSTOMERS" is farcical - but true.

Well, they did kind of promise not to mine very much:


Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140704032338/https://www.kncminer.com/pages/faq (emphasis added)

I'm sure that plenty of customers (myself included), when evaluating their decision to purchase, counted on KnC keeping their word and not competing with their own customers on the massive scale that they are today.

Oh, finally got my Neptune Y cable adapters...  Does that mean we can run them now?   OMG

Yeah, i was thinking about the frankenjups they sent out, having pulled them straight off the datorhall shelves.
We all know that's what happened but perhaps proving it may be another matter.

Sounds like the inevitable judgement against KNC will come with PUNITIVE DAMAGES !

To be honest that issue would have to be handled as an entirely separate lawsuit and I'm not sure what basis you could challenge their right to mine with their own equipment. Unless, of course, there was solid evidence proving that they had been mining with their customer's equipment before sending it out and that it was to the the detriment of the hardware inasmuch as relegating it to that of being considered used equipment when it was being shipped as new.

Not saying it couldn't be done, but it would require some significant supporting evidence.

Otherwise any claim about how 'wrong' it is for KnC to have their own mining operation is nowhere near a legal argument.


I prefer it when KnC have already incriminated themselves and admitted shipping out an unfinished product after being told by their customer not to.

There's not a lot of wiggle-room for them after that.

"So, KnC, you sold the Titan miner as being fully capable of mining any scrypt coin on any mining pool, yes?"
"No, that's not what we meant, we actually meant for people to read through all the promotional posts we were making where we explicitly said those things and know that, actually, what we *really* meant was that it was intended to be just a straightforward-Litecoin miner"
"Can you define what you mean by 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner'?"
"Yes, it means whatever we need it to mean in order to avoid being held to performance specifications we didn't meet"
"So, whilst your own forum shows proof that your firm were promoting the Titan as your first "Dedicated scrypt miner" and boldly asserting that it would mine "all scrypt coins on any pool the customer chooses", you actually want to pretend that's not what you meant and that you'd rather it be accepted your description was merely that it would be a Litecoin miner?"
"Yes"
"So you shipped the Titan with it being able to mine Litecoin on the Litecoin p2pool, then?"
"Erm, no"
"Oh, was this a fault with the device?"
"No, we hadn't actually finished developing the firmware yet that would allow it to function on the Litecoin p2pool"
"Yet you shipped these units to customers anyway, even though they weren't fully-functional 'straight-Litecoin miners'?"
"Yes, but we told them we'd eventually be done building it and it could then mine on p2pool"
"So it wasn't a design fault, so much as a design fact? The device would be able to mine on p2pool, but only when you had completed building it by supplying the customer with more firmware updates?"
"I don't know about admitting that, if we could call it a fault then we'd be able to legally take our sweet time in 'repairing' it after having shipped it"
"Did you confirm to any customers that it wasn't complete and could not mine on p2pool prior to you shipping their units?"
"Only after we'd managed to ship a bunch out in the dying seconds of Q3, before that we didn't mention that it wasn't done being built yet, we just said we had to 'tweak' it a little"
"So you did confirm to customers, eventually, that it could not mine on p2pool?"
"Yes, yes we did, in forum posts and in emails"
"So, after the customer had been informed that you were intending on shipping them an unfinished product, what did some of them seek to do?"
"They said we weren't shipping what they had paid for and that they were cancelling their order and required their money back"
"What did your company do"
"Shipped 'em anyway"
"Even when told not to?"
"Some might suggest it was *especially* when we were told not to, but that wouldn't be true. We just shipped 'em out no matter what the customer said"
"You shipped an unfinished product even when told not to?"
"Yes, yes we did"
"You are aware that the evidence from your own forum and emails fully incriminates your firm in this illegal behaviour?"
"No Refunds! What don't you get, norefundnorefundnorefundnorefund. Because we say so!"
"That'll be all, your honour, prosecution rests".

Swedish courts should make an order against KNC to demand they shut diwn their self-mining operations. To thos of you involved in the lawsuit against them, i urge you to press for this.

Better call the police and report them

The number they provided (+46 8559 253 20) is going to voicemail everytime I call, can someone confirm it works recently?

Can the titan 1 mine dogecoins ?

Oh, did I?

Maybe KnC have got the message by now and I won't need to keep repeating the details of how they shipped a product out with inherent LIMITATIONS ON USE that evidence proves they were fully aware of when they shipped, yet chose to force them on their customer anyway and finish building them after they had already been instructed on multiple occasions not to ship a product which they knew to have LIMITATIONS ON USE.

Maybe I won't have to keep repeating how these LIMITATIONS ON USE, which basically forced their customers to have to USE the Titan in a LIMITED way until KnC finally managed to fit that fourth wheel and finish building the product the customer actually paid for.

Maybe I won't have to keep repeating how, the moment KnC decided to ship a product they KNEW to have LIMITATIONS that were not intended to be in the finished product, is the moment they were legally obliged to honour cancellation instructions from their customers who did not agree to accept a product that did not meet the specifications detailed at the time of sale.

In choosing to ship Titans out before they were finished making them, most likely to not breach the Q3 deadline they had promised, they breached a different element of the sales contract and, in doing so, meant their 'No Refund!' condition did not apply because such a condition, even if a court were to accept so onerous a stipulation, would only apply if KnC did not breach the sales contract in the first place.

Which they did by knowingly shipping the Titan units out UNFINISHED and . . .

with . . .

LIMITATIONS ON USE.

For a non EU resident I understand that this is the correct form that needs to be used - http://www.konsumenteuropa.se/en/Contact-US/ , right ?

*edit, this is for EU residents only, is there a service for non EU residents ?

**edit2, found it - http://www.consumersinternational.org/.... lets hope for the best..

Then it looks like you'll have the most success with having ARN take on your case seeing as KnC already had their arse spanked by them over wrongly declaring consumer customers to be businesses and, on top of that, unfair and onerous terms and conditions of sale.

http://www.arn.se/English/English/

No, I'm a private customer, If I were a business I could get the vat tax back.

what diff at worker at titan mineR?

What is in that box is not what you paid for. It is an unfinished Titan that KnC shipped to you in full knowledge that it had LIMITATION ON USE that was not disclosed at the time of purchase.

That they are frantically trying to make features work, such as p2pool, is not a 'fault' issue it is an unfinished product issue.

The inability to properly function on certain pools and coins when they chose to despatch your miner is not as a result of a design fault but, rather, a design fact.

Simply put, they are still trying to build the product you actually paid for AFTER having shipped it to you.

They are not allowed to do that. A fault discovered after delivery is one thing, an unfinished product that is knowingly being shipped with design fact limitations in its firmware is akin to shipping you a car with three wheels and limited performance when you paid for one with four and they knew that what they were shipping you was not what you paid for, yet they chose to ship it anyway with the intention of completing it after you'd had it in your possession for a period of time.

If you cancelled your order on the basis that the product was not what you paid for and they claim it was, all the while knowing that it had a limitation on its use that was not originally intended to be in the finished product and is not intended to be in the finished product, then it is not a finished product and they do not have the right to finish manufacturing it on your premises and on your time.

They certainly do not have the right to force delivery of goods that they know are incomplete and their continued intransigence on this matter is going to trip them up big style. If I were a VC company recently invested in KnC, I'd be *really* worried about the chance that all those millions handed to KnC were going to be pumped into legal fees in a vain attempt to dodge responsibility for a fact that is already proven against them.

Here's the facts:
1. KnC's own staff confirmed that the Titan would mine all scrypt coins on any pool the customer chose - the explicit evidence for this was posted by them on their own website back in March.
2. There is no evidence to support KnC's recent claim that the Titan was being promoted as a 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner' and, even if we were to generously accommodate that baseless assertion as though it were true, the inability to mine on Litecoin's p2pool is a limitation of use for a 'straight-forward Litecoin-miner'.
3. Evidence posted on their own website AND in email correspondence, proves that they knew it to have limitations prior to shipping, such as an inability to mine on Litecoin p2pool, let alone all the all limitations related to the, previously promised, 'any scrypt coin any pool' functionality.

No company is allowed to ship a product they *know* to be unfinished or incomplete and they certainly are not entitled to keep parroting "No Refund!" when, even if such an onerous condition of sale were allowed to stand in a court of law (doubtful), it would only apply to the finished product, you know, the one you actually paid for, not the one they decided to ship before they were done building it.

? Ignore them and they will return to sender ?

You have a business by any chance? Cost me ~500$ vs ~1600$ to import mine using my business.

UPS is holding my titan for 2 weeks now since I don't want to release it to the customs and pay additional 2000$.. how long can I keep it at UPS's hands ?