So, correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but the refund agreement says that the customer agrees to be refunded in BTC at no specific date using the coinbase.com rate on that particular date, and they furthermore agree that repayment covers all obligation that VMC has to the customer.

So let's say that between now and when the refund is paid, the customer enters into legal action against VMC. All VMC has to do is pay the refund for that customer, and doing so would activate the agreement and stop the legal action.

In other words, this isn't a refund request, it's a settlement agreement that doesn't even require VMC to pay anything up front. It can easily be triggered by VMC if you ever sue them, and it still lets them wait literally forever to pay you back. So the form gives VMC power that the customer shouldn't agree to.

I filed a complaint with the BBB and finally received my refund (requested on Feb 6, 2014)  today. I strongly encourage others who are in a similar situation to do the same, since it provides a public record for both the problems and their resolution.

Same here. Time to apply pressure from customer protection agencies and BBB.

I purchased a plan for my December batch miner on a time-limited offer in late November. Given that they were offering hosting plans so very close to the promised release date, either Cointerra knew they were behind schedule and didn't share this info with Terramine hosting, or Terramine hosting also knew this info and decided to quickly sell as many hosting plans as possible before everyone else found out.

I really don't see how Terramine Hosting /Cloud hashing is a different company than Cointerra except in the sense of it being a different administrative unit. The address on my bitpay receipt is the same as Cointerra, and the way they do business is the same as Cointerra. They promise refunds, and repeatedly come up with a very long string of excuses for why it hasn't come yet, with ridiculous technicalities, and delays.

Cointerra refunded me four months after I requested a refund.

I waited over four months since I requested my refund from Terramine Hosting, but have gotten nothing yet.

My refund check for my December batch order has cleared. It took a whole week of phone calls back and forth just to deposit the check in my Bank of America account, but it finally appears to be OK. Well, that's a start. It's not like I got compensation for them holding my funds for around 8 months, but it's a hell of a lot better than it could have gone.

I'm still working on getting the wire transfer that Terramine hosting promised me.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a class action lawsuit that comes out of this yet, especially the false expectations, highly suspicious timing of hosting plan promotions, and failure to deliver what they promised with the Cointerra-Terramine Hosting arrangement.

Well, for one, I'm presently going through all the available consumer protection agencies. Have done the Texas AG, am doing the FTC on Monday unless the funds clear, and will do the BBB on Tuesday, and if I don't have satisfaction by Wednesday I'll be shortlisting Lawyers. I'm going through a similar process with Terramine Hosting.

Not to pick on you specifically, because we're all in the same situation, and I have been equally complicit in this: Faith is defined as belief without sufficient evidence.

There's no reason to trust anything we are being told by Cointerra. Lying is a cooperative act. We want to believe what they say because the alternative is too horrible to accept. The only way a lie works is if you agree to participate. When it comes to Cointerra, I choose to have zero faith, and instead act only based on evidence.

Well, I wasn't planning on writing about my situation, but it seems like it might help.

In January, I asked for a refund for my December batch order. Last week I got a hand-written check (after an insane amount of back and forth). I took it to the nearest Bank of America branch, and I wasn't able to deposit it because they needed to speak to Cointerra on the phone. Of course, no one answers their phone.

I wonder exactly how bad the situation is, and to what extent this conduct is criminal in nature.

My thoughts on the matter are as follows:
1) If Cointerra is running an criminal scam, then they already have contingency plans in place to deal with any legal complications. Still, since they are working within a particular system (banking, legal), we can prevent that system from working in their favour. We can at least stop them from doing this to more people.
2) If Cointerra is just plain incompetent, then it is of utmost urgency to document as many details about the case as possible, and to present that information to the relevant authorities, because if they do go bankrupt, they may have little to none of their own records available to help resolve claims, and you'll want to be first in line to collect on yours.
3) If Cointerra is acting in good faith and has run up against a temporary but legitimate snag, then going through legal steps to recover funds is going to be a nuisance for both the customer and for Cointerra, and will result in wasting a percentage of the funds to be recovered, but that will be the extent of it.

So at the end of the day, given how bad things are already, there is absolutely no reasonable downside to filing very detailed reports to the relevant authorities, and pursuing all legal means available.

Obviously a lawyer or two is going to be necessary. If anyone can refer me to a good criminal lawyer, and a good debt collection lawyer, that'd be very helpful. For this particular case, it would seem that both specialities are needed. I would like to gain information on what criminal charges might apply to these activities, as well as the relationship with Terramine Hosting/CloudHashing, and, of course, I need to recover my funds.

I'm obviously angry. But to those of you who want to come to the forums to vent, and publicly threaten legal action, save your energy and instead just take action instead. Don't bluff. You have a lot to lose.

Notwithstanding your rant, I guess we can mark you down as not caring about the issue then

I tried to put it in as gentle and non-inflammatory way as possible. I didn't want to revive a years-old debate -- figured those who remember it would know what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people having a particular faith, but I insist that this should not marginalize or antagonize people who have a different faith.

We know that Luke-Jr enshrined prayers in the blockchain by virtue of the hash power of the miners in his pool. That was an egregious violation of trust, and is highly relevant to the current discussion as we consider whether he should be given more opportunities to exert influence on the future direction of bitcoin.

I'm in favor of separation of church and state.

3 module no psu, black, arrived in Canada via DHL today, order #46xx

Nicely packaged and clean. Hope I can recover a bit of BTC from it.

paid $86.96 on delivery

declared value: 602.16 CAD (USD exchange of 1.0382)

But tell me, do you actually disagree with anything I actually did write?

All perpetual mining bonds are expected to lose their value in the long term, given the expectation that difficulty will continue to rise over the long term.

But they are bets on how fast difficulty will rise, and it is possible to buy them for less than their future value.

I think that the simplest way to understand DMS.MINING is that the correct price is what the market thinks 1 mh can earn in about a year (plus a safety margin). That time frame is very important because we can say pretty reliably that over a substantial portion of a year difficulty will probably not trend downwards or stay the same. If we extend the timeline further, say to two years, that would be even "safer". If we reduce the calculations and use 6 months, or 3 months, then we run the risk of collapse because DMS would be entitled to ever-increasing dividends out of a fixed pot. Unless new buyers of DMS.PURCHASE come in to provide more capital, I don't see how the fund could avoid catastrophic failure.

So unless I misunderstood, the single most important feature defining the correct value of DMS.MINING is the period of time specified in the contract. If it were calculated based on a 6 month return, we'd have much higher yield per mh, but higher risk of catastrophic collapse. If it were calculated based on a 2 year term, we'd be much safer, but would expect much lower yields per mh. This, I think is the key distinction between DMS.MINING and TAT.VM.  If difficulty levels off in the future, TAT.VM has no problem with it, but DMS.MINING could collapse.

7

% annual return is hard to predict for both of them, because they are different things. AM is mining + re-investment + sales. TAT.VM is income per hash. So over the long term, AM dividends will not drop as fast as the TAT.VM dividends. TAT.VM dividends will fall when difficulty rises. AM dividends will fall when they can't deploy enough new hash power to make up for difficulty increases or when their sales drop.

6.7

6.3

would appreciate 2FA

5.9