Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 29 results by bitcoinermax
Re: CoinTerra announces its first ASIC - Hash-Rate greater than 500 GH/s
It looks like to me, that somebody of them is folowing this forum. 2 hours after I posted here, my order for hosting changed too to "Payment Received in Full". Thats why I removed my older posts.
[/quote]
I think aerobatic helps feed back to CT, as it has been mentioned previously that he is an angel investor in CT? Whatever it is, at least they are being notified so I don't think it helps to attack him if that is indeed the case..
[/quote]
I think aerobatic helps feed back to CT, as it has been mentioned previously that he is an angel investor in CT? Whatever it is, at least they are being notified so I don't think it helps to attack him if that is indeed the case..
Re: [BitFunder] IceDrill.ASIC IPO (500 Thash Mining Operation powered by HashFast)
I just wanted to say that you have been negotiating with HashFast until October. Now, i don't have a dime in this security, but i would be wondering what those long discussions have been about during this 100 days.
Looking forward for when you will finally be able to release some details of the agreement you seem to be going to sign with HF.
(but i don't have a lot of hope on it either)
Looking forward for when you will finally be able to release some details of the agreement you seem to be going to sign with HF.
(but i don't have a lot of hope on it either)
So how is your lawsuit progressing? Do you have your units yet?
Re: CoinTerra announces its first ASIC - Hash-Rate greater than 500 GH/s
Sorry your car is missing 20% of its engine... we'll give you a discount on your next one!
And it's more Gas than advertised......
How late is the feb batch going to be??
OK.. please dont shoot me. im just playing devils advocate here.. and using your car analogy... to show you from cointerra's point of view.
youve ordered a sports car that was advertised as going at 200 MPH and consume 20 MPG and youve paid them $6,000 up front for it.
Now, theyve come back and told you that theyre sorry, that the car that they built will go 170 MPH, and consume 24 MPG and with further tweaks in the future it may go faster.
Theyve told you you can have a choice...
do you still want your sports car delivered even though it goes a little slower.. at 170 MPH and consumes 24 MPG? or would you prefer a refund?
Do you think a car company would allow you to take your car... but because it doesnt go 200 MPH and only goes 170 MPH do you think they will offer you a 15% refund? (i dont think so). theyre offering you your only two choices... 1. take it as is and hope they continue to tweak it... or 2. have a refund.
The cost of building the car was the same so its not like they can afford to refund you anything. if you choose to take a refund they will sell the car to someone else.
dont shoot me.. im just explaining it in the way that theyre seeing it.. and using your car analogy works well.
I think the key difference versus your car analogy above is that people bought the product on a price/GH basis... A more accurate analogy would therefore be if someone running a fleet of buses was sold a 80 seater bus with a promised fuel economy but the bus delivered in the end only seats 60 and is a lot less fuel efficient. So the changes in spec are clearly going to affect the bus operator's profitability and it isnt what he paid for. Having said that, I think CT's choice to deliver earlier rather than having customers wait while they redesign their boards (like HF) is a good decision that a lot of the community prefer. Taking the bus analogy further, I am not sure it is fair to tell customers that the cost to the bus maker of the 60 seater vs the 80 seater is the same, (ditto re the reduced fuel efficiency) as this isnt relevant to the end user / bus operator and it should be the bus manufacturer's responsibility to deliver what they had offered
Edited final sentence... (Re fuel efficiency)
Re: CoinTerra announces its first ASIC - Hash-Rate greater than 500 GH/s
has anyone got their shipping tracking # yet?
not yet... I'm still hoping for the next week or two. I'm also hoping for my hashfast 'sierra' order to be delivered in a similar time. i just received a baby jet today, so the rest may be being built as we speak... the race is on!
Hi aerobatic
Since u seem to have bought the whole gamut of ASICs - KNC, HF, CT etc, it will be interesting to hear your views about how they compare, once you have both the HF and CT machines delivered and are then able to compare all of the performances side by side. I hope you will continue to stay neutral in your commentary as that's what makes your posts worth reading, tho I seem to have detected of late a bit of CT favouritism?
From the Cointerra thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=269093.msg4603400#msg4603400
put this into context. i ordered a lot of hashfast systems and they're more than 3 months late(!) and I'm not angry at them either. Sure, I'm negotiating with them - in good faith - as to what happens now, as i feel I've overpaid with my order compared to when I'm going to receive it. i paid a lot more, per gh for my hashfast systems than i did for my cointerra systems on the basis that the hashfast ones were sposed to arrive 2-3 months ahead of the cointerra ones. Cointerra by comparison was a bargain - especially now that it looks like they both could ship in the same few week window, yet one was significantly cheaper than the other. had hashfast delivered in october, that too would've been well priced... and it was on that basis that i ordered from them.
I'm definitely not angry at cointerra as they're not even late yet... and I'm still hopeful that the january batch will ship in january - they still have two weeks left (to start shipping, at least). if it slips into february i won't be angry at them either.. as thats part of the deal i signed up to. if they delay til march or april, i will probably start to get more anxious! but angry... no, not ever!
if i was ordering new equipment, NOW, i couldn't get it in the same timeframe, at a similar price.
btw, if anyone does want to cancel their batch 1 hashfast or batch 1 cointerra, let me know... as i might want to buy it ! i can't buy anything cheaper in that delivery timeframe.
Well since you have so much extra 'access' why don't you tell us wtf is going on over there, and if you're such big buyer i don't know why you're acting so cool and collected about this and defending them, you should be more angry than anyone on this forum.
put this into context. i ordered a lot of hashfast systems and they're more than 3 months late(!) and I'm not angry at them either. Sure, I'm negotiating with them - in good faith - as to what happens now, as i feel I've overpaid with my order compared to when I'm going to receive it. i paid a lot more, per gh for my hashfast systems than i did for my cointerra systems on the basis that the hashfast ones were sposed to arrive 2-3 months ahead of the cointerra ones. Cointerra by comparison was a bargain - especially now that it looks like they both could ship in the same few week window, yet one was significantly cheaper than the other. had hashfast delivered in october, that too would've been well priced... and it was on that basis that i ordered from them.
I'm definitely not angry at cointerra as they're not even late yet... and I'm still hopeful that the january batch will ship in january - they still have two weeks left (to start shipping, at least). if it slips into february i won't be angry at them either.. as thats part of the deal i signed up to. if they delay til march or april, i will probably start to get more anxious! but angry... no, not ever!
if i was ordering new equipment, NOW, i couldn't get it in the same timeframe, at a similar price.
btw, if anyone does want to cancel their batch 1 hashfast or batch 1 cointerra, let me know... as i might want to buy it ! i can't buy anything cheaper in that delivery timeframe.
https://angel.co/hashfast
I doubt that would have paid for much, as the full cost of the mask, paying for all the hardware (not including all the things gone wrong, which would only add more to their costs), etc probably closer to 10x that, not to mention their operating costs, salaries etc. So the chances of them not having spent all (or almost most) of the BTCs by now is extremely slim. Even assuming they do have some amount of BTC left, how are they going to allocate that to various customers as I am not sure it would even be legal for them to do so. Are batch 1 customers going to demand that they take from their later customers' funds to pay off their earlier ones?
If so, what batch 1 customers are effectively saying is that HF should scam later batch customers to pay them 1st and that they are knowingly participating and in fact advocating or encouraging a Ponzi scheme. That would make them and HF joint scammers and I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow that either. If I remember correctly, i have read somewhere that some of the early beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes (Madoff?) had to return refunds they had been paid so that they could be divided fairly to all investors
Cedivad - why don't u go check with your lawyer?
Quote
Seed May 13, 2013 $630,000
Friends, Family, and Founders
Friends, Family, and Founders
I doubt that would have paid for much, as the full cost of the mask, paying for all the hardware (not including all the things gone wrong, which would only add more to their costs), etc probably closer to 10x that, not to mention their operating costs, salaries etc. So the chances of them not having spent all (or almost most) of the BTCs by now is extremely slim. Even assuming they do have some amount of BTC left, how are they going to allocate that to various customers as I am not sure it would even be legal for them to do so. Are batch 1 customers going to demand that they take from their later customers' funds to pay off their earlier ones?
If so, what batch 1 customers are effectively saying is that HF should scam later batch customers to pay them 1st and that they are knowingly participating and in fact advocating or encouraging a Ponzi scheme. That would make them and HF joint scammers and I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow that either. If I remember correctly, i have read somewhere that some of the early beneficiaries of Ponzi schemes (Madoff?) had to return refunds they had been paid so that they could be divided fairly to all investors
Cedivad - why don't u go check with your lawyer?
^^ It is really extremely odd that they haven't posted anything to stop/prevent this kind of crazy speculation. Of course they can't just disappear. They are a US company, their identities are known, people have met them etc And if they had simply been planning to run away with people's money, I am sure there would have been better ways to do so - not spend millions of $'s paying TSMC, Uniquify etc for one.
But as it must be clear to everyone by now that they have run into some problems/bottlenecks, why not simply say so? I am sure people would prefer to know than to be kept in the dark. The lack of communication is only making things worse and I don't think people's reactions will be any worse if they knew.
But as it must be clear to everyone by now that they have run into some problems/bottlenecks, why not simply say so? I am sure people would prefer to know than to be kept in the dark. The lack of communication is only making things worse and I don't think people's reactions will be any worse if they knew.
I would honestly like an explanation where in that response you've found a confirmation that the full amount of BTC would be returned? Cycloid asks if he will "get the same amount of BTC back", and Simon Barber answers "refunds ... will be given in BTC." Just for a second make an assumption that Simon Barber is a ruthless scammer and that he made a vague answer on purpose, where do you read "same amount of btc" in his answer?
Does it matter if they don't have the funds to repay and all the BTCs have already been spent? As far as i can see, the only chances of BTC refunds is if they self mine. The question is which is the least worst option. Waiting for a refund that might never come or Taking the kit whenever it is finally delivered, assuming they can everything to work in the end
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)
You've miscalculated something, I think it is just the opposite. The refunds are the cheapest option for HF for two reasons: If they refund the BJ they can resell that miner again, and also they don't have to give the MPP to the buyer and can also resell that MPP. Refund once, sell five times. Especially if they can refund BTC partially, not the full BTC amount which they obviously plan to do. I do believe they will not ship on purpose to provoke the refunds and then sell the "miners-in-hand" which will sell like pop-corns.
If only HF planned quite that well! As if they did, they would have delivered ages ago... Frankly I don't think they are close to being that organized or financially savvy or they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now!
The shipping cost to us will need to be paid by customer and we will pay for the shipping cost back. Please declare value as 1000 US dollar."
........Not only do they want me to pay return shipping, but also to undermark the customs. Pretty sure its illegal to do that... not happy with a establish company asking me to do that.
[/quote]
Bobsag - for the customs declaration, one possibility is simply to state "return of non functioning device to manufacturer" or some such wording. As a broken machine is worth a lot less than a functioning one, as long as you state this or the equivalent, I don't think you will be underdeclaring the value. Actually other than perhaps for insurance purposes (maybe $1000 is the value of the rest of the parts, or that KNC would like as the insurance value?) there is no reason not to simply state "NCV" (no commercial value). So I think you should be fine with stating the $1000....
Hope this helps. Good luck with the rest!
........Not only do they want me to pay return shipping, but also to undermark the customs. Pretty sure its illegal to do that... not happy with a establish company asking me to do that.
[/quote]
Bobsag - for the customs declaration, one possibility is simply to state "return of non functioning device to manufacturer" or some such wording. As a broken machine is worth a lot less than a functioning one, as long as you state this or the equivalent, I don't think you will be underdeclaring the value. Actually other than perhaps for insurance purposes (maybe $1000 is the value of the rest of the parts, or that KNC would like as the insurance value?) there is no reason not to simply state "NCV" (no commercial value). So I think you should be fine with stating the $1000....
Hope this helps. Good luck with the rest!
so what you are saying is dont bother? just let hashfast do what they want? you are so weak.
[/quote]
Not a question of weak or strong, but what is the point if nothing can come of it? Suing can take years and years and the only point of doing it is if the other side can pay in the end. If they can't, then why double down on your original loss?
nevermind the fact that customers will have their units in hand only 3 to 4 days (if not longer) AFTER 31'st.
And since that it's not delivery, we will easily win our case. I should hear back from the lawyer today...Cedivad - how much time and money do you have to waste on this? as you had better tell your lawyer you are trying to sue a start up that has spent all its money on NRE etc. Unless the lawyer is there to simply take your cash off you, any half sensible lawyer will tell you that you are wasting your time and money. Seriously how old are you and what do you know about either the legal process or the bankruptcy process? If you don't know squat, you had better start learning. Do your research 1st or the next thing you will be doing is whining about your lawyers taking your money and not being able to deliver your BTCs back from HF or his fees
I also think HF's communication is sorely lacking but I am really hard pressed to see how suing a co with no funds is going to help anyone at all
As to what happens if they miss December 31st, if there are enough refund requests, especially with legal backing (and this appears to be the case), and they don't have the coins/cash to refund, then I suppose they file for bankruptcy and/or sell themselves, or part of themselves, to somebody who wants the tech and can take on the liabilities.
Or they sweeten the MPP so much that they defuse the situation with enough customers that they can wiggle out by refunding some and placating others with promises of future hashpower.
If they file for bankruptcy, good luck trying to get refunds of any kind! Even if someone wants the tech, they can probably buy it for less than the liabilities so why should they take it on? Pushing the co to file for bankruptcy is probably the worst of all worlds...
Better just hope they deliver fully functional working machines ASAP!!!
You still think they will meet their Dec 31 deadline? Oh man...
[/quote]
i have no idea if they will meet the deadline or not. Almost certainly, they will try and do so. Actually what is strange is that they haven't shipped already since as some have commented, they could ship not fully functioning units just to claim they shipped before the due date. So the fact that they are risking missing their deadline could mean they have good intentions, but that is still no excuse for their poor communications.
Either way this doesn't change the fact that if they don't have funds for refunds, it doesn't matter what everyone wants or whether they agree to it, if they don't have it, how are they going to do it?
[/quote]
i have no idea if they will meet the deadline or not. Almost certainly, they will try and do so. Actually what is strange is that they haven't shipped already since as some have commented, they could ship not fully functioning units just to claim they shipped before the due date. So the fact that they are risking missing their deadline could mean they have good intentions, but that is still no excuse for their poor communications.
Either way this doesn't change the fact that if they don't have funds for refunds, it doesn't matter what everyone wants or whether they agree to it, if they don't have it, how are they going to do it?
People defending HF... No, i really can't understand it.
Cedivad - I think you need to try and understand:
- if HF do end up missing the Dec 31 deadline, the problem is going to be a lot more serious than refunds in BTC or USD. As the real question is whether HF has the funds for refunds at all or not. And if they don't, then it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks refunds should be in BTC or USD or what HF agrees to, as they simply won't have funds to return. Their only way out as far as i can see is for them to self mine to pay for the refunds. But that wont or cant happen overnight as they will need to find a hosting location, set it up etc etc so what everyone needs to think about realistically is whether you would prefer (a) to wait for them to mine enough to pay the refunds or (b) to simply mine them yourself. My guess is that (b) might be quicker and give everyone a higher degree of control than waiting for news all the time
The unfortunate reality is that anyone who buys pre-sales puts themselves in the same boat as the seller. The seller might be driving the boat but even so, if the boat sinks, everyone will go with it. Not only the driver. So while it is understandable to want to sink the boat out of frustration with the driver, in the end, it will likely only be self defeating
let us see what happens next. eventually HF and its customers comes to a good solution for both sides. some deliveries and some refunds. our goal should not be to liquidate the company in the long run but it depends very strong on the HF attitude.
The silence does seem deafening! Although best guess is they are swamped with all hands on deck trying to solve whatever problems they have before the Dec 31 deadline, and clearly there must be some issues or they would be shipping already. But on the upside, better they are still trying to work through things than not, otherwise it is likely game over for HF and their customers as shouting and screaming isn't going to bring refunds whether in USD or BTCs if they have already spent the funds on NRE / paying their supply chain. If the funds have been spent, then better take the deliveries than not, late or otherwise and hope the MPP will be delivered sooner. otherwise the other solution is for them to self mine with the returned equipment, otherwise I can't see where they will get funding for the refunds. Note this doesn't apply only to HF but also to other start ups with limited funding such as CT
It was nothing special, other than being of topic, actually.
BTC price back to one month ago? What a crash! HF, we are gonna to sub 10$, please refund me my BTC. Thanks.
BTC price back to one month ago? What a crash! HF, we are gonna to sub 10$, please refund me my BTC. Thanks.
Cedivad - I'm curious. If all you want are your BTCs back, why did you ever buy mining equipment in the 1st place? Wouldn't it have been easier and less stressful to have just kept your BTC?
As for suing HF, please remember that you are dealing with a start up. So unless they get a lot bigger/more successful, i am not sure what you will achieve by suing them, as it will simply be like stabbing a straw man. All that will happen is that you will make things harder for the co and perhaps force them into liquidation and in this case, there will likely be even less support for their equipment than if they are still around. The same applies to other startups too BTW as there are usually few (if any) assets to go after with a start up. You might therefore want to save your money rather than throw good money after bad, if that is what turns out to be the case. Buy more BTCs if you believe they will go up from here, but don't waste your money on lawyers when it is likely there will be nothing to go after
Aerobatic Firstly I should say that I respect your posts as they have generally been neutral and not biased for, or against, any of the ASIC suppliers / wannabe suppliers. I also think HF could be more open as to what has caused their delays. However to be fair, I am not sure if your pricing comparison below is correct as if the full MPP for HF is triggered (which i am sure is highly likely by now), then surely the correct price comparison for HF should be $2.80/GH for partial delivery in dec (assuming that deadline is met) and the rest of which depends on when the MPP is finally delivered? So unless my calculation is wrong, is their late delivery not also priced in?
[/quote]
youre ignoring the price in that equation.
hf charged $14/gh for october delivery, and now might deliver in december/january.
ct charged $7/gh for december and $3/gh for january, and let people switch between the two batches at whim, thus most will get their january order, in january, at january prices. no one has reason to be upset at that because the delivery date has been priced in.
[/quote]
Not that this is an excuse for HF's poor communications or to stickup for IceDrill but he does have a point (albeit an overly exaggerated one) that the same principles should be applied to all the ASIC suppliers or supplier wannabes
[/quote]
youre ignoring the price in that equation.
hf charged $14/gh for october delivery, and now might deliver in december/january.
ct charged $7/gh for december and $3/gh for january, and let people switch between the two batches at whim, thus most will get their january order, in january, at january prices. no one has reason to be upset at that because the delivery date has been priced in.
[/quote]
Not that this is an excuse for HF's poor communications or to stickup for IceDrill but he does have a point (albeit an overly exaggerated one) that the same principles should be applied to all the ASIC suppliers or supplier wannabes