iikun... if you call him you can see that he occassionally clicks away a call. He reads ticket headers but getting an answer is nearly impossible.
Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?
Think about it just like we took train from same place to same destination. Your ticket was 1 hour earlier than mine. But the train delayed 1 hour. When the train arrived staition, the conductor let me go first just because you was already delayed but I didn't. Do you think this logic is right or wrong?Wayne_Chang... i think that is your logic and i dont understand it. I asked for a miner refund because the long delay for batch 3 is so big that i dont believe anymore to get the buying price back. Thats not the case with the chips. I didnt ask for a refund for the chips. I ordered chips because not much can go wrong. Now having the chips delayed because of an independent product isnt ok. It doesnt help the b3- buyers anyway when you see the difficulty. So why should the next group of customers get problems?
The comparison with the trains doesn't work because the comparison is wrong. A better comparison would be if one person arrives via train and the other arrives by plane. The airport misplaces the luggage the passenger had brought along the plane. Is it fair for the airport hub to hold the train arrivals until they find or unload the passengers luggage that was misplaced on the flight. Of course not, the person that traveled by train shouldn't be delayed or penalized.
If the Avalon chips came in for Avalon B3 order and also the Avalon chips for only chip orders, then those should go out ASAP. It's not ethically fair to hold up chips for one group when the chips are ready for both the Avalon units and DIY boards. Whether its a hold up on pcbs, other parts or assembly its not fair for the DIY avalon chip projects out there. This will also have a negative effect on them since the next generation chips will be coming out down the road which also cuts into them as well.
Maybe a good practice would be to return some of the premined Avalon asic income that was generated from testing the units and use those to partially credit B3 people's purchase.
By that metaphor, one assumes that the Batch #3 chips were in fact always intended by Bitsyncom to have been manufactured as part of the mass chip order for the cumulative ordering of all the bulk chips, or that subsequently Bitsyncom has decided it would be prudent to save money in waiting to place one huge chip order to cover all sales, as opposed to a required smaller run specifically for Batch #3. Which at Batch #3's significantly increased price point, priced to meet promised returns from proposed difficulty at a guaranteed delivery date, wayy ahead of the bulk chip delivery, would be a gross misappropriation of Batch #3 buyers' funds.
In essence it looks like Batch #3's chips were manufactured at the exact same time as all the bulk orders, so any proposed price point based on return on investment due to their assumed future difficulty, which at the time never included such massive quantities of bulk chips, was totally false...
Was there a promise that stated in writing that stated Avalon batch 3 units investment would be paid off and if so, in what time frame. That's part of the risk with investing in hardware and supporting the network. It might now always be in ones best interest and ones rate of return might not be as fast as one thought.
