Quote from: ninjarobot on January 19, 2014, 08:33:19 PM

That is exactly the problem. HF is doing what is good for HF, not for their customers. They retroactively rewrite the rules of their own game to suit their needs. Offsetting risk and losses from the company to the customer. That might be acceptable if we were investors or 'backers'. But we are not.

Ok, so lets consider for a moment if Hashfast did not do what was good for Hashfast... Hashfast refunds the BTC at the current rate, presumably having to purchase them off the open market. Where does that money come from? They probably don't have it, as it's already been spent on development... but lets say they do have the cash to purchase at least some of the BTC back. They exhaust all of their cash to do this and issue as many refunds as they can. Now they have zero cash to continue operations (people don't generally work for free and suppliers sure as hell don't give away product for free), have not paid back everyone and are forced to go out of business.

The end result of your solution: Some people get paid back, others get nothing. No one gets hardware.

At least to me, that sounds like a much worse solution than everyone at least getting your hardware, even if it is late. If I were a customer, I'd rather have guaranteed late hardware than a crapshoot of a 1 in ten chance of a refund or nothing. Maybe you have a different opinion.

Quote

You use heavily biased words like whiners, criers, unsatisfiable... But all people are asking is for HF to live up to their own promises. Nobody is asking for more than they put in. Customers will be happy to break even or take modest losses at this point. I would not call that unreasonable or unsatisfiable.

No... lots of people are calling for a BTC for BTC refund. Rightly or wrongly on Hashfasts part for agreeing to that (or not, depending on your interpretation), it's simply unlikley to be practical and you have the above outlined scenario. If people were solely asking for USD refund, then I might in principal agree with you, but do I really have to quote the numerous people asking for BTC for BTC refunds?

Quote

This situation is entirely of their own making. Selectively forcing USD refunds on their earliest BTC customers while not communicating is not what I call doing 'the best they can'.

Is it though? How do you know? From my own experience, I would say it's not. Maybe it is, though and you have some inside knowledge I do not have. Again, from personal experience, sharing too much information incites a whole different class of complaints and problems than not sharing enough... it's a very, very fine line and very easy to miss that line when communicating with this forum... and in fact, I personally think there is no happy medium, which is why I've stopped giving a crap what people here think. I personally don't think it's possible to satisfy the forum denizens here and until the forum trolls are subdued by the moderators, it's why this forum is complete garbage and nothing important gets done here with regards to hardware.

Quote from: novello on January 19, 2014, 11:34:40 PM

As an impartial observer in this situation,

If asked, he might be willing to try to talk to the Hashfast management, if only to try to get them to communicate with their buyers. He has a much better chance of doing so than any of you. I know it's not how these things normally work, but both companies and Hashfast's customers could stand to gain from a bit of pragmatism.

How about it, Josh?

Wow, that is a truly intelligent and cogent post and probably pretty accurate given the US legal system. Thank you for taking the time to make it.

As far as the request goes, I doubt anyone here would listen to anything I would gain information wise, since it would likely contradict their own personal biases and the crusade née witch-hunt that is going on right now. Very few people here want to hear the truth, they just want their beliefs confirmed and the truth be damned.