As an impartial observer in this situation, I'm seeing lots of contributors turning against one another over a problem that's been caused by a third party not delivering what they promised. To make matters even more confusing, a senior employee of another supplier is trying in his own way to bring a sense of reality to proceedings and possibly to help people come to terms with the situation.

I've been discussing this ongoing show with a friend of mine who's a QC (Queens Counsel or Barrister - basically a very senior lawyer who has a Right Of Audience in the highest courts in the UK) and sometimes stand-in judge, particularly over the T&C's of Hashfast and the thorny subject of refunds. Now, the first thing to recognise here is that American and UK contract and consumer law are not the same, however they are similar enough that a judge in either jurisdiction could make sense of and rule on the terms of a contract. The exceptions are the notion of 'class actions' which are not (usually) recognised in UK law, and 'fair terms and conditions' in UK consumer law which does'nt seem to have a parallel in the US.

I don't intend to bore you with the details but he had some very interesting observations.

The first and most important one was that his was not a normal sales agreement - it was more akin to a 'futures' contract for delivery of a piece of electronic equipment at a fixed price at some future time. When buyers agree to purchase the contract, it was - by the nature of the equipment and it's application - fully understood by the buyer that the equipment did not as yet exist and would only do so if sufficient buyers purchased contracts to fund it's development and manufacture. You might at this stage argue that people preorder new model BMW's or Iphones, but in these cases the development and manufacturing costs have already been met by those suppliers. It is also clear that the buyers knew that there was a risk that things might not go right, and were willing to accept that risk in return for a possible future commercial advantage.

Where this gets muddy is not in what was purchased, but rather what would happen if Hashfast failed to deliver the equipment, especially with their MPP where they are unable to supply the promised additional chips to make up for lost hashing power. I couldn't find an original copy of the original Hashfast T&C's but the current ones clearly distance Hashfast from any consequential damages from their non-delivery and limit liability to the purchase price only. For the original equipment, this would be the most likely ruling from judges on both side of the atlantic, ie neither party would gain or lose any benefit. For the MPP it's a lot more complex, but basically it's another 'futures' contract although in this case the damages could be quantified in terms of lost BTC's -regardless of whether a court accepts that they are legal currency- if Hashfast cannot deliver the missing chips. It seems they haven't built in an escape clause for that eventuality, and it may be their undoing.

Had Hashfast been contracted by a third party to build rigs for them and them  only, the contract would no doubt have included T&C's from the buyer about consequential damages or remedies in the event of non performance by Hashfast. With regards to the thorny question of refunds in BTC, my friend pointed out that Hashfast advertised products for sale in US$ OR Bitcoins, so there was a clear equivocacy between the two. It would be entirely reasonable for an 'average person' to know that being a US based company, Hashfast would pay for it's supplies and services in US dollars, and sell products for said. The fact that it was willing to accept a token of value, ie Bitcoins does not dilute this and a buyer would be under no illusions that Hashfast operated in US dollars and would have to exchange Bitcoins for said to function normally. Following on from this, it is reasonable for Hashfast to refund in US dollars. Courts in the US or UK would both rule this normal and reasonable. The fact that people might prefer BTC would not come into it, Any loss claimed by a buyer because of the rise in Bitcoins value would be swept aside - they would be no worse off with a US diollar refund now that they were when they made the purchase, and for the reasons cited above, neither (under normal circumstances) would Hashfast. Whether or not they promised refunds in Bitcoins is a moot point. If the value of Bitcoin had bombed, you wouldn't mind getting refunded in $US -that's what a judge would say.

This might not be what many of you want to hear, but it's what the end result of a court hearing is likely to bring. Hashfast can't 'force' you to take a refund but a refund is their only remedy if they can't deliver their side of the bargain. If they are refunding you or terminating the contract for convenience, then that's a whole different matter and ventures on fraud, although it would be extremely difficult to prove. You might be able to track what happened to your Bitcoins, ie did they go to an exchange when or soon after you paid, but even if they didn't it wouldn't prove Hashfast was acting in any way fraudulently.

So where do you go from here?

Well, it would help if you stop attacking one another and focus oh the real source of the problem. I don't know to what extent Hashfast are or aren't communicating, but at the risk of getting hundreds of abusive posts, might I make a suggestion?

Josh is a very prominent member of the Bitcoin community and, love him or hate him, he is an important part of a leading rig supplier. He has continued to post in this thread despite the abuse he gets, and there is some sense in what he says about the development process and things that can (and do) go wrong and some buyers attitudes. I'm sure from an entirely pragmatic perspective he doesn't want Hashfast to crash; competitor or not, it's not good for business.

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?