Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2013, 06:04:03 PM

i still do not necessarily agree that using cc's is the best way to go for the consumer.

i believe that cc's encourages an intake of greater amounts of USD to fund these companies and their pre-orders than do restricting payments to BTC. consider the situation of a malicious company that simply wants to take in as many USD's early on by adopting a payment strategy that facilitates this, drag out a delivery date to "expire" as many of the 60 day guarantees that the cc providers give, and then run with the money. that's not good.

No, the assumption of '60 days' is false, that's down to the consumer to call their issuing bank and determine their level of protection. In the UK it's six years. That doesn't mean I can call fraud as and when I like and get free product and money, it means I'm sufficiently protected. Some card companies state third party payment methods like Paypal and Amazon negate this, so check with your card issuer. A guy y'day stated that a US Discover card carried him 180 days. It's depends on your card issuing bank, and the type of card you have.

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2013, 06:04:03 PM

consider the scenario where the company is legit but then gets a false picture of what the demand for their product is simply b/c there are ppl out there wanting to reserve an order as a put option in case they change their minds. that's not good either in that the volatility of that order book can cause a company to severely miss their targeted assumptions and result in BK resulting in loss of your money and long lasting support.

You mean to fraudulently deceive a company into believing you're making a sale with no interest to purchase? You know full well about this, as you did it and it's illegal, yet you still try and justify your action in the Hashfast thread as acceptable;

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 09, 2013, 04:55:29 AM

yes, then don't order.

in fact, you can blame me for advising them not to take cc's. like i said in my thread, i had orders of 3 Jupiter's in at KNC, and 8 H boards with BitFury. i never intended to order that many as a whole simply b/c i was playing the Ms. Fickle game of hedging my bets across multiple companies fully intending to cancel all but one order with whom i deemed the winner in my orderbook in the end. so i artificially inflated the internal expectations at both these companies about what the demand was going to be going forward.

That said I don't believe you fully appreciated the legality stipulated below, but the fact you still try and debate it in your thread as acceptable when you are a representative of a company is madness.

Article 2, the 'Sales of Goods' in The Uniform Commercial Code.

"A contract of sale is a legal contract an exchange of goods, services or property to be exchanged from seller (or vendor) to buyer (or purchaser) for an agreed upon value in money (or money equivalent) paid or the promise to pay same. It is a specific type of legal contract."

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 13, 2013, 06:04:03 PM

at least for a BTC accepting company, the significantly dampened volatility of their order book can be counted on when planning out their production strategy. this is not an insignificant point. it also helps the BTC economy by increasing money velocity thru the system. and in the event of a scam or BK, at least the consumer hasn't lost tax or debt repayment USD's.

This is FUD, you're trying to justify Hashfast's reasoning for accepting BTC payment, when the only reason they won't accept other forms of secure payment is because they don't want to deal with the aggro of appeasing issuing banks, card payment processors or Paypal's verification demands and sales terms. Any US company can do this, it should be a given, especially in the climate of people loosing monies invested here.

It may take the approval of the payment processors, but the real reason comes down to the fact Hashfast want to raise cash before Cointerra, or X-crowd, they know they are in a desperate race for a limited supply of cautious funding. This has nothing to do with BTC (liquidity, not velocity!??), and everything to do with you earning your commission, by luring people into a deal that could easily be safer for them to participate in further compounded by the promise to double their hashrate if delayed, by enticing them to forgo common sense and act on impulse, whilst removing the ability to request a refund until way after the delivery date, at which point if you fail, who's getting refunded, and how?

Who's taking liability for all the monies spent? Fact is they're is no guaranteed refund in case of failure to deliver in a reasonable amount of time. Like KnC, and Cointerra the chips have to work first time, this is not the standard iterative process in designing IC components, only unlike KnC there is no recourse however you choose to spin it, and that matters to me.

Call me a KnC fanboy if you like, but I dismissed many deals before I saw one that was safe and acceptable by my own personal criteria. If you are claiming you can match on technical ability and deliver on time, then back it up with a secured payment method and stop promising people what you think they want to hear. To their credit KnC invited who ever they wanted around an open table to ask them whatever they liked and to have what ever proof they required without an NDA.

I don't go into threads looking for rows, but I will call BS when I see it.