Quote from: jspielberg on December 25, 2013, 10:11:55 PM

In hindsight... a better MPP would be to refund the miners any difference between the cost of the original system and what it would have mined in 90 days (in BTC of course). I think many would have preferred that to more hashpower later.

Absolutely. I suggested this to HF back in August but unfortunately they went with MPP instead. Remember the purpose of MPP was to protect against excessive hash rate increases, not delays.

Quote from: ninjarobot on August 11, 2013, 12:43:12 AM

Quote from: Simon Barber on August 10, 2013, 06:08:08 AM

Orders are taken in BTC, in the unlikely event we get to refunds they will be given in BTC.

This is a step in the right direction.

If you really want to do it right you should provide customer protection by providing refunds based on missed opportunity cost.

For example:

HashFast promises to ship on October 30.
Customer paid ~60 BTC for a pre-order unit.
Customer registers a refund BTC address at the hashfast.com site.
For every day HashFast misses their target shipping date, a partial automatic refund will be made based on what a 400 GH/s unit would have mined at the difficulty at that date.
This would continue until either the refund is complete or the unit is delivered.

This would:

Prevent a BFL-type pitchfork scenario and alleviate worries that HashFast might be hashing with customer hardware at customers expense.
Give customers peace of mind; At worst they would have provided a free BTC loan to HashFast. At best they get a unit that has already started making some ROI before delivery.
Provide a strong incentive for HashFast to deliver on time.

(Note that I made this suggestion before they added the December 31 'guaranteed delivery date' to their ToS.)