Quote from: aerobatic on December 24, 2013, 06:21:36 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 24, 2013, 01:53:57 AM

The problem with "give more hashpower" is that its expensive and doesn't assure the company that the risk of lawsuits will go away.

A better path would be to offer the a choice of a full 1:1 refund in BTC as if the sale had never been made or enough additional hashpower that most customers would choose the latter.

The problem is that the 1:1 refund at this point would be a hard deal to match and I suspect that many people now believe the original October claims were flat out dishonest, making promises of further hash-power later unattractive.

This is what I was referring to earlier on the thread about there being potentially no clean solution. A half measure doesn't remove hashfast's legal exposure, and a full measure may not be within their ability to afford.

giving more hash power is less expensive than giving people refunds... especially if they have to refund in btc (which i can't see how they can afford to do, even if they promised it)

hash power only costs them 'cost price', whereas its value to customers is at 'retail price'... thus giving extra hash power is a valuable way for them to compensate people that costs less than its worth.

tada! thank you. Giving more hash power is an easy win, they don't even have to make more chips to do it just allocate it out of their existing personal stash or just make some other poor sucker wait for their BJ (see what I did there?) Cheesy