New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
You're all just going round in circles
Pointing out that using multiple machines to mine shitcoins on providers that are simply not targeting such shitload does not work, is not strawman but common sense.
I really still do not understand your point, if you are actually making any. Would you mind to explain what is the case?
Ouch, really? Not all that classy in my opinion. Sure, i'm not saying Netcup is necessarily much different but turning it off in front of everyone is, well... bold. It's kind of like they are hellbent on making things look worse than they really are. Why not just admit that the shared-dedicated voodoo failed to work it's magic this time and will be improved? I don't get it.
Let me break it down for you. If the terms and conditions I agreed to forbid something, and I use the server to do that specific act that is forbidden, the provider can refuse me service. But obviously that isn't the case. Dataforest just wants to steal my money, hence they don't want to refund and instead want me to close the case on Paypal and they will "manually" refund me.
If I did something against their terms and conditions, they would have come out and said it. What I do is none of your concern as long as it isn't illegal or against the companies terms and conditions. The topic here is the false advertising, and fraud. Not whether you support crypto or mining or what a "providers is targetting". If they don't want people to use the servers for a specific use, then put it in the terms and conditions. Simple as that.
Actually, it's you who is lost.
With so much fighting against everyone who doesn't blindly defend the host, you completely forgot what this thread is about.
Besides, I can't help you with your functional reading difficulties. If the thread is too hard for you to follow or if you're struggling with something, just take a deep breath, go for a walk, or do something else.
People have explained the same thing to you in numerous ways, but you're still resisting. Shouldn't you take some action on your own end to address this?
It's no surprise they did that. They're frauds.
I'm not going to use that word (seriously the name calling is probably a good part of why they are reacting so petty) but to me actively hiding the problems resulting from such a creative setup somewhat comes off as a kinda dishonest admission that the whole thing doesn't do what it's supposed to do and therefore needs to be hidden...
Too many words for not answering. Which logical fallacy is it? Or you learnt only straw-man?
No, let me break down for you:
The fact that you have no idea how these providers work, is your problem now, not mine. The best I can do is to educate and help you about what's going on. The fact is that you are using services for mining that are not intended for this. And I do not have to read any terms, I use servers for many many years.
Now is it true that they tried to work out a solution or not?
It's clear that this is a joke. We haven't and we won't.
You don't seem to get the joke either - again: your problem was solved, you couldn't show a single screenshot that it wasn't the case - I'll give you a serious tip for once and for the last time: stop spreading untruths, that we are “frauds”.
Which is legally binding stated exactly where?
So, just to get this straight: You have no idea if OP's use case violates the AUP but you lash out at him anyways?
I never said he violates AUP
Oh, sorry. I guess i should not believe everything i read on the internet.
Well played @emgh , well played...
Problem was never solved. Stop lying. Proof is all in this thread. Anyone can see the time of the screenshots in my time (Eastern Standard Time) and your German time in the tickets. I have over 160 screenshots of high steal and would have more but you removed a lot of the servers from my account while I was still screenshotting them. You never provided 4 dedicated cores. And if you were so honest, you would provide a refund. Instead you want me to close the case, and then trust a company that lies about its products to refund me thousands of euros. Please don't take me for a fool.
The way providers work is they have terms and conditions, and you have to follow them. That's it. And for the 100th time, no one was using them to mine anything.
This guy is making it seem like there is some unspoken code of what to use servers for. The terms and conditions dictate that. I can't read a companies brain, so instead I read the terms.
So how do you determine that it's not intended for this? Is there a list of valid use cases i'm not aware of?
Shit, maybe i should hurry and check my servers... I'm also running stuff the provider hasn't explicitly OK'd. Probably those boxes are not intended for this and i should
shutdown -h nowimmediately... Sorry, i'm not a big fan of crypto either but as long as it doesn't violate the AUP it's fair game.It really doesn't need high IQ to understand that since German VDS providers migrate resources when not needed, do not intent the services for mining.
Now let's get serious, I never said that he did something wrong, I said that he tried to use something that was not intended for this, I never said not allowed for this.
This may explain to his head why he had high steal in the first place.
I really focus to the fact that avoro tried to sort this out, but he disputed. Would he be able in the end to have 500 servers mining 24/7? I guess we will never know.
Yeah sorry, using high computation resources to get rewards, my bad.
It's really like discussing with a small child - I've explained everything to you several times, the re-balance of your VMs and all nodes live takes some time, you were probably asleep at the time of completion (due to the time difference) - we started before your Paypal cases when we wrote to you, completion was clearly _ long after_ your Paypal cases. The servers were then automatically deactivated because Paypal, due to the cases, collected the payments - this has nothing to do with us or were they intentionally shut down. Once again: stop spreading lies to make yourself look better. Netcup and Hetzner will also kick you out sooner or later and I hardly think that anything will be refunded.
Also about the Paypal case: we simply cannot make a partial refund within open cases, if you don't trust us, that's not a problem, then another solution can be found with Paypal. You have obviously given fake data, there is no trust on our part that you will stick to the deal, which we accepted within a very short time.
Instead of making short work of it and (as you said) closing it, you keep arguing here - you have no risk. In the same breath, you insinuate that we don't want to refund anything - which is clearly false and refutable.
Sure, the provider won't like clients that are somewhere between unprofitable and loss leader and if it's a serious problem these types of unwanted use cases then get disallowed through AUP. For christs sake the product even advertises that the rented resources are guaranteed.
OK, i somewhat get where you are coming from but what you are describing is pretty much why one should think about which kinds of contracts to enter into. An unfavorable contract is still a contract and if one was unwise enough to enter into one of those the only thing left to do is curse and not do it again.
Nope. He could have burned the CPU cycles in any possible way known to man and the outcome would have been exactly the same.
I'm not saying it isn't a little impatient but who knows his deadlines? He bought a product and later found out it would need him waiting X amount of time, so he backed out. For everything he didn't touch i'm 99.999% sure he's entitled to a no questions asked refund anyways and for everything else it's down to the actual fine print if he can just bail because of cool down. Yeah, things likely could have been handled more amicably but in the end it's business and what counts is the letters...
You don't understand. I needed the 4 dedicated cores when I bought them. Not after I find out they aren't dedicated. And you already SAID that the steal can be faked. So you already lied about dedicated resources, yet you expect me to trust you will "fix" anything? Some of the screenshots I took were hours after you said you fixed it. Anyways I don't want your service anyways because it was never 4 dedicated cores in the first place.
No there is no fake data. The payment was made with my business partners verified Paypal and credit card. There would be no reason to even use fake information. I could have just paid using a guest checkout on Paypal. It makes no difference.
You can easily call Paypal right now and tell them you want to refund all the transactions and just keep 300 euros for one of them but you choose not to. You aren't even refunding the €1,613.92 transaction which wasn't even delivered in the first place and the other two smaller ones.
You are the child because you think arguing with a customer makes you look good. I have already received several messages of people who wanted to buy your server but now they don't and are asking me if netcup is good. You don't understand that by not just refunding, you make your business look worse. It's clear you have no experience in running a business.
I've been using hetzner for 3+ months, no issues.
Sorry, next time I'll buy a server with 4 dedicated cores and only use them on 1% load so the provider can oversell them and make more money.
+1
We generally agree, now leaving all the useless details aside, this comes down to 2 possible scenarios:
Do you think that the latter implies deception?
My first word on this thread was that they should not accept the order. But still it seems that they tried to sort this out even with loss.
Was it naive from their part to try to sort this out? As it turns out from the result, yes they probably do not understand the mining use case.
But certainly no one can blame them for deception, and all other jokes written on this thread.
Now this maybe a cultural thing, because some people try to see what was the intention and some other point out the letter of law. Truth is that in a court, laws are usually interpreted in the context of intention.
Yes, but we are not faking a steal, it was simply a response to your statement that you have 0% steal with a competitor - there is no such thing as 0% steal and that can be proven too.
Sorry, but your data is not conclusive, neither the ID (which incidentally did not come from the account email but from your Paypal email, i.e. a completely different first and last name) nor anything else. Maybe (!) this is a verified account of someone else, but that sounds more like reselling and that would not be an issue for Paypal buyer protection because it would not be covered at all. Also it doesn't change the data you have provided to us, despite the fact that you are obliged to do so (!). We did not write to you that it had been fixed, as I was still on the road at the time of completion.
We also cannot tell Paypal what to do or not to do, either you want to complete it or not, anything else we go around in circles.
Yes, please read our Statement, thanks!
this thread is very offending and quite surprising that misleading things are being sold here...
What are you on about? You can tell Paypal what to do. You're the seller. They want to close these cases as soon as possible. Call them and tell them to refund them except for one where you want to do a partial refund and keep 300 euros and I'll accept it on my side. I only sent the ID from the Paypal email because you asked me to verify the Paypal email. That Paypal is controlled be me and my business partner. No one is reselling anything.
Anyone in here who has used Paypal can verify that the seller can close the case at any time by making a refund or making an offer to partially refund.
Deception, maybe not but deceptive... hell yeah. If you want to run a clever scheme replacing an expensive thing with a cheaper thing it's up to you that the cheap thing lives up to the expensive thing. Sure, they'll likely act wiser in the future but this time it was an epic failure.
Which is something we'll never know any details about. Also trying is not necessarily succeeding and while trying is commendable the client is still not forced to just sit it out and hope for the best. In this state the whole thing is basically lost business to anyone who could actually have successfully filled the order, because he A] doesn't play clever games or B] knows how to play it without slipping up.
Well, like i've said before any type of constant load would have the exact same outcome and the resources are advertised as guaranteed. There's 3 options to fix this: Know what the setup is actually able absorb, vastly up the available tolerances, quit making bold claims about guaranteed availability and sell it as what it is: Shared resources.
They sell guaranteed resources, which seemingly don't life up to this claim... What else does it take?
Yeah, they are and in this case i can tell you the result would - with practically 100% safety - be that the impression made on the customer is that he's renting resources that are available 24/7 with no restrictions on the way they are used or how.
My only intention was to use the 4 dedicated cores. Look at the screenshots again with me and them in the ticket. They admit that the prices they provide are based on customers not using the CPU to its fullest. So they are selling dedicated resources for double the price of their "VPS" yet there is no difference whatsoever and both are shared at the end of the day. I did not break their terms and they are false advertising. A court would side with me.
No, that's not possible, I can't do a partial refund - that's it, there's nothing to discuss. I've already told you today how we can do it - you're not taking any risk, but you're still discussing it here and you assume we don't want to refund at all. Either you accept it or you don't.
Now you're twisting the facts again, sorry - you should verify your PayPal account, where the payments came from (because there were some orders with illegitimate credit cards via Stripe, the person who ordered it happened to have your first name) - you haven't done that yet.
As I said, we're out of here, you know everything you need to know, we would have liked to have finished this with you today, but you're not interested in that and that's it. Keep going around in circles.
You know what's really funny? They sell a VPS on their site for half the price. They sell these rootservers as dedicated just to make more money and I guess try to compete with netcup (they bring up their competition a lot in this thread and in the service tickets) when it's no different than the half price VPS they sell.
Guaranteed until you drain the pool of available compute by ordering hundreds of machines, once the pool is restored, the issues wouldn't exist.
OPs fault for expecting the world for such a low price and not contacting the provider before placing such a large order.
Avoros fault for taking an order so large that the compute guarantees could not be met.
Other providers offering the same product will likely be doing the same.
At the end of the day it's a virtualised environment on a shared and constantly changing hypervisor. If you want full isolated and truly dedicated resources, you buy a physical dedicated server.
That's it, done.