Quote from: BFL_Josh on September 19, 2012, 10:01:04 PM

If the community did not react so violently to changes in statements made here, we would be more open about our plans, but as it is, if we make a statement and then later have to change that, it turns into a giant mess.

This is a glossing over of the matters at hand.

So, it's ok for BFL to lack transparency, so that it's easier to perpetrate activities that the mining community would frown upon? Interesting. So very ethical of you. That's exactly the kind of community focused company policy I enjoy. Do you realize that every BFL customer made a purchase decision under the false pretense that BFL would not be participating in the mining of bitcoins?

Quote from: BFL_Josh on September 19, 2012, 10:01:04 PM

Nedbert9: We have the best interests of Bitcoin as a whole at heart. Since you disagree that keeping the security of the network is of paramount importance, please let me know what your order number(s) are and I will get your refund issued immediately so that you may pre-order elsewhere.

That is an amazing mis-characterization of my concerns. A politically crafty statement to redirect attention from BFL misleading the community early on and falsely suggesting that it is technically, or practically, impossible to QC BFL units without impacting main-net.

Protecting Bitcoin means you need to QC - every unit for 24 hours - on main-net.... really?

Sinking pretty low eh?

Re: Returns. I wouldn't be so stupid to reveal my orders to you and not auction them off. I'm def considering it.
Not for this, but since your glorious leader likes to scam old people in the mail.