Search content
Sort by
Showing 14 of 14 results by opello
Re: Amagi Metals - Best Prices of Gold, Silver, & Platinum for Bitcoins
Is it just that we can't display prices in BTC, or are you also temporarily not accepting BTC? Thanks!
Just the display part. Put in an order the other day and did the BitPay dance during checkout.
Re: [FAILED]Butterfly Labs 30 day countdown to the end of September
You mean the one that has a circuit board prototype with no traces linking the components?
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/dbtgallery.php?do=view_image&id=1379&gal=gallery
It will be shipping in two weeks.
. :Sarcasm:You know, I really hate to defend BFL ... but if you look closely, the red solder mask hides the traces pretty well. But down at the bottom, by the Altera Cyclone IV FPGA, there's a trace going to a clock (just above the 1x PCIe fingers). That's just the easiest to see I think, there appear to be others, but it's hard to distinguish from the JPEG artifacts.
Still waiting for my BTC paid for Single ...
Well, after asking the BBB's investigator for some clarification about why BFL was judged as doing nothing wrong, here's what I got:
So it doesn't look like they're going to be much help until October, if at all.
Quote from: The BBB
I think if you take them to court, you have a case for a refund. I also think they have a case for not providing one. There's always nuance.
Sections of contracts/agreements trump federal regulations all the time and vice versa. Sometimes regulations dictate that certain agreements are inherently deceptive, and void the agreement. On the other hand (more often), if you agree to certain provisions, regulations that guard consumers no longer apply. They are simply nullified by your assent.
By explaining that your funds are being used right now in the development process, and stating that all pre-order sales are final, they can certainly make the case in court that no refunds are due, because everyone agreed to the terms. At that point, a judge would determine if the company is making a good faith effort to provide the pre-ordered products. This is where it gets tricky because it's completely subjective. How many months should consumers wait for a product that should have, by all accounts, been delivered in May or June? We frequently run into this problem with open-ended roofing contracts, in which customers are waiting way too long for service. Court cases conclude with varying results on a case-by-case basis.
A few things:
1. I think we all agree that Butterfly Labs made mistakes and angered a lot of customers, especially with their use of "two months or more."
2. Based on their reputation in the industry, and materials they've provided, it appears that they are making a good faith effort to provide customers with the ordered products.
3. It is, in reality, implausible for BFL to retract their funds from development. Even though this isn't the customer's problem, it is a practical hurdle when trying to get a company to resolve a complaint filed through the BBB.
In most delivery complaints, the BBB is looking for the company to either produce the ordered products or provide refunds. In this case, they have consistently said they will provide the products by a specified date. We want to give the company an opportunity to correct this problem before turning the issue over to any regulatory agency. If we hear from you or any other customers that the goal posts have been moved back again, and they haven't made any progress with deliveries by Sept 30, we will re-open the complaints and likely contact the Attorney General's Office about it. But, right now, we think that would be premature and yield little results.
Sections of contracts/agreements trump federal regulations all the time and vice versa. Sometimes regulations dictate that certain agreements are inherently deceptive, and void the agreement. On the other hand (more often), if you agree to certain provisions, regulations that guard consumers no longer apply. They are simply nullified by your assent.
By explaining that your funds are being used right now in the development process, and stating that all pre-order sales are final, they can certainly make the case in court that no refunds are due, because everyone agreed to the terms. At that point, a judge would determine if the company is making a good faith effort to provide the pre-ordered products. This is where it gets tricky because it's completely subjective. How many months should consumers wait for a product that should have, by all accounts, been delivered in May or June? We frequently run into this problem with open-ended roofing contracts, in which customers are waiting way too long for service. Court cases conclude with varying results on a case-by-case basis.
A few things:
1. I think we all agree that Butterfly Labs made mistakes and angered a lot of customers, especially with their use of "two months or more."
2. Based on their reputation in the industry, and materials they've provided, it appears that they are making a good faith effort to provide customers with the ordered products.
3. It is, in reality, implausible for BFL to retract their funds from development. Even though this isn't the customer's problem, it is a practical hurdle when trying to get a company to resolve a complaint filed through the BBB.
In most delivery complaints, the BBB is looking for the company to either produce the ordered products or provide refunds. In this case, they have consistently said they will provide the products by a specified date. We want to give the company an opportunity to correct this problem before turning the issue over to any regulatory agency. If we hear from you or any other customers that the goal posts have been moved back again, and they haven't made any progress with deliveries by Sept 30, we will re-open the complaints and likely contact the Attorney General's Office about it. But, right now, we think that would be premature and yield little results.
So it doesn't look like they're going to be much help until October, if at all.
Of the FTC, KC AG, and KC BBB, the KC BBB was the only organization (so far) to actually service my complaint.
Sadly, today they administratively closed my complaint, citing that they had made a good faith effort to resolve the complaint. So I called them up, and spoke with the person assigned to my case (Lauren) and she told me that the BBB's investigator had decided that BFL was not doing anything wrong, and that they were going to wait until after September 30 to take further action. I didn't understand why this was the case, and didn't get a very detailed answer when I asked, other than that September 30 was given to the BBB by BFL. My first piece of correspondence with BFL through the BBB included that date as well, as the current estimate for most of the backlog to be fulfilled. But that was the first I'd heard that date.
So I have an open question to the investigator about why BFL is considered to have done everything above board when they didn't give definite shipping dates, and also didn't give another chance to receive a refund after failing to meet "two months" after May 1 (when orders were reconfirmed for the chassis change).
I guess I'll wait for the investigator's reply, but it seems like based on the BBB's response, the AG is the next step.
Sadly, today they administratively closed my complaint, citing that they had made a good faith effort to resolve the complaint. So I called them up, and spoke with the person assigned to my case (Lauren) and she told me that the BBB's investigator had decided that BFL was not doing anything wrong, and that they were going to wait until after September 30 to take further action. I didn't understand why this was the case, and didn't get a very detailed answer when I asked, other than that September 30 was given to the BBB by BFL. My first piece of correspondence with BFL through the BBB included that date as well, as the current estimate for most of the backlog to be fulfilled. But that was the first I'd heard that date.
So I have an open question to the investigator about why BFL is considered to have done everything above board when they didn't give definite shipping dates, and also didn't give another chance to receive a refund after failing to meet "two months" after May 1 (when orders were reconfirmed for the chassis change).
I guess I'll wait for the investigator's reply, but it seems like based on the BBB's response, the AG is the next step.
Re: BF Labs Inc. officially reinstated their once ended refund policy via Bitcoin.
Might also be worth complaining to BitPay.
Quote from: BitPay Terms, 9.3
Purchaser Complaints. Purchasers filing complaints about a purchase will be forwarded to you for resolution. BitPay reserves the right to terminate accounts which receive excessive complaints.
(from https://bitpay.com/terms)Judge: Did you read the contract before you signed it?
Plaintiff: Well, I read part of it
Judge: So you did not read this part here...
Plaintiff: No
Judge: Case Dismissed... NEXT!
Plaintiff: Well, I read part of it
Judge: So you did not read this part here...
Plaintiff: No
Judge: Case Dismissed... NEXT!
IANAL, but without a concrete delivery date, I don't think the "sale terms" actually form the offer component of a contract, if it were to be tested.
Re: BF Labs Inc. officially reinstated their once ended refund policy via Bitcoin.
Indeed. Requested refund on Monday (2013-08-21), denied citing the "all sales final" condition. Further correspondence included an interesting tidbit:
I've read different here, and heard different from a friend of mine. But I don't really know first hand.
So while I hope that the this policy is reinstated, it doesn't appear to be from my perspective. I filed a complaint with the FTC, the Kansas AG, and the Kansas BBB, I guess we'll see what happens.
Quote from: Paul Scholes
We aren't accepting refunds and have not accepted refunds for the past several weeks I have been in this position.
I've read different here, and heard different from a friend of mine. But I don't really know first hand.
So while I hope that the this policy is reinstated, it doesn't appear to be from my perspective. I filed a complaint with the FTC, the Kansas AG, and the Kansas BBB, I guess we'll see what happens.
You could forward to BFL that you have taken these actions. Along with:
"no sale has yet taken place" because you have not received your merchandise.
BFL can be fined for up to $16,000 for each instance of these violations.
This would give them one last chance to do what the law requires of them.
Good idea, did that as well. Thanks.
Re: BF Labs Inc. officially reinstated their once ended refund policy via Bitcoin.
Indeed. Requested refund on Monday (2013-08-21), denied citing the "all sales final" condition. Further correspondence included an interesting tidbit:
I've read different here, and heard different from a friend of mine. But I don't really know first hand.
So while I hope that the this policy is reinstated, it doesn't appear to be from my perspective. I filed a complaint with the FTC, the Kansas AG, and the Kansas BBB, I guess we'll see what happens.
Quote from: Paul Scholes
We aren't accepting refunds and have not accepted refunds for the past several weeks I have been in this position.
I've read different here, and heard different from a friend of mine. But I don't really know first hand.
So while I hope that the this policy is reinstated, it doesn't appear to be from my perspective. I filed a complaint with the FTC, the Kansas AG, and the Kansas BBB, I guess we'll see what happens.
I'll chime in here and add that I was burnt by user 5810 to the tune of ~$550 USD. Two separate transactions and paypal closed one case almost immediately despite the initial notification stating that I had 7 days to respond. There was no explanation or note of any kind in the case.
I'm a long time member of paypal in good standing, not that I *really* expected them to take that into account.
The second case is still open and I posted any/all supporting evidence, such that I had. If I do get any serious response I'll update here.
I'm a long time member of paypal in good standing, not that I *really* expected them to take that into account.
The second case is still open and I posted any/all supporting evidence, such that I had. If I do get any serious response I'll update here.
About the same story for me too, #5810 took me for $541 across 2 transactions. The first dispute looks like it was actually generated by the "buyer" and the second seems to be automatically generated. The user-generated one looks to be closed (after I uploaded screenshots it was closed after about 2 minutes). The second is *still* open.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but people were talking about opening and resolving a dispute so that it couldn't be disputed again? I don't know if that works for PayPal, but otherwise intermediate escrow assuming the liability is the only "best for the seller" option that I can see.