[Report] bitaxe.de

[skot]

Which vendor?

https://bitaxe.de

What's the issue?

Fraud or scam reports

Evidence

There have been some reports from the community of issues with bitaxe.de. I have not personally verified any of these claims either way, so I'm hoping @bitaxeshop can respond here.

• Was bitaxe.de representing themselves as a "bitaxe legit" seller previously when they were not actually listed?
• Was bitaxe.de claiming to make regular donations to OSMU when they were not?
• Is bitaxe.de misrepresenting the entity behind the storefront? Who is actually behind bitaxe.de and where are they located?
• Did bitaxe.de previously use contact information from a different unrelated bitaxe store without permission?

Confirm

• I'm reporting this in good faith, not to knock out a competitor

[bitaxeshop]

Thanks for opening this and giving us the chance to respond.

We all have a pretty good idea where these reports are coming from and why, but we’d prefer to address the claims.

1. Legit seller status
   We have consistently followed the Bitaxe rules long before being listed, but we have never misrepresented our status. As you may remember, in early 2024 we initially listed LuckyMiner products. After a short but helpful educational conversation with you, we understood the license issue and removed them immediately. Despite this, we were not officially listed. Since then, we have made sure our operations stay fully aligned with the open-source mining ecosystem until the listing via Github.

2. OSMU donations
   We have supported open-source mining for a long time, mainly by sourcing some of our Bitaxe units from Bitronics in Spain, a manufacturer closely connected to the OSMU ecosystem, which contributed back to OSMU and Nerdaxe developement. We have never claimed that we paid direct donations to OSMU.

3. Entity behind bitaxe.de
   Bitaxe.de is currently operated by Nanohash, an Estonian-registered company operated from Germany. This is publicly verifiable through the company register and our legal notice, register number and VAT ID. Repeated claims suggesting otherwise are defamation and are also part of the ongoing legal dispute agains Solomining.de.

4. Old contact information
   We did not misuse any contact information. Our customers can reach us through multiple official channels. Our customer reviews and customer feedback clearly reflect that we are reachable and responsive.

It is honestly sad that we have to deal with defamation, infringement claims, and “licensing” drama instead of building Bitaxe and onboarding new people into open-source mining, all because one competitor clearly does not want us in this market. What we still don’t understand is why there is zero support in defending the Bitaxe name against these trademark squatters.

[kliA90]

Thanks for opening this issue. I think the screenshots attached here are important context for the community.

In the February 2025 screenshot, Bitaxe.de publicly presented itself as a “verified and legitimate Bitaxe seller” / “Bitaxe Legit” seller. At the same time, they claimed to donate USD 10 per sold miner to OSMU. To my knowledge, neither of these claims was true at that time: they were not actually a verified / legit seller, and the claimed OSMU donations could not be confirmed.

This is not a minor wording issue. These are customer-facing trust claims. They were used to make the shop look officially endorsed by the Bitaxe / OSMU community.

The Wayback capture from February 13, 2026 shows the same pattern again, but with a changed story: now they claim to donate 5% to OSMU, while still presenting themselves as a verified and legitimate Bitaxe seller. The same capture also shows a “Verified Seller / Made in Germany” style badge. Previously they claimed “Made in Europe”, later “Made in Germany”, and now they appear to be back to “Made in Europe”. This constant switching of public claims is a major red flag.

Taken together, this looks very scammy and misleading:

• claiming verified / legit status before actually having it;
• making public donation claims to OSMU that could not be confirmed;
• changing the donation story from USD 10 per miner to 5%;
• switching origin claims between Made in Europe and Made in Germany;
• repeatedly changing imprint / legal entity details;
• previously listing third-party contact information in their imprint.

A vendor with this history should not be listed as “legit”. The Legit Seller List is perceived by buyers as a trust signal, and Bitaxe.de has repeatedly used exactly this kind of trust signal in a misleading way.

In my opinion, Bitaxe.de should be removed from the Legit Seller List.

[skot]

1. Legit seller status
   We have consistently followed the Bitaxe rules long before being listed, but we have never misrepresented our status. As you may remember, in early 2024 we initially listed LuckyMiner products. After a short but helpful educational conversation with you, we understood the license issue and removed them immediately. Despite this, we were not officially listed. Since then, we have made sure our operations stay fully aligned with the open-source mining ecosystem until the listing via Github.

Can you explain how claiming you were on the Bitaxe legit list, despite not actually being on the Bitaxe legit list is good for the open-source mining ecosystem?

[skot]

2. OSMU donations
   We have supported open-source mining for a long time, mainly by sourcing some of our Bitaxe units from Bitronics in Spain, a manufacturer closely connected to the OSMU ecosystem, which contributed back to OSMU and Nerdaxe developement. We have never claimed that we paid direct donations to OSMU.

Is the wayback machine screenshot from @kliA90 above correct? To be clear, donating to OSMU never is and never was a requirement for being on the legit list. However I do think being honest about whether you donate or not is important.

[multipledisconnects]

I’m not even surprised at this point. Luckily, I took a screenshot, so we can show the public the embarrassing things you tried to hide by deleting evidence.

[skot]

I’m not even surprised at this point. Luckily, I took a screenshot, so we can show the public the embarrassing things you tried to hide by deleting evidence.

If you have some evidence related to this topic, please post it. Off-topic rants will be deleted.

[WantClue]

2. OSMU donations
   We have supported open-source mining for a long time, mainly by sourcing some of our Bitaxe units from Bitronics in Spain, a manufacturer closely connected to the OSMU ecosystem, which contributed back to OSMU and Nerdaxe developement. We have never claimed that we paid direct donations to OSMU.

Is the wayback machine screenshot from @kliA90 above correct? To be clear, donating to OSMU never is and never was a requirement for being on the legit list. However I do think being honest about whether you donate or not is important.

The screenshots referenced in this issue are accurate and can be verified via the Web Archive. Multiple snapshots from 2024 to present are available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20240519050236/https://bitaxe.de/

Bitaxe.de was notified in 2024 that they were falsely claiming to be on the legit list. They did not respond. A follow-up notice was sent in 2025, which has also been ignored.

Additionally, this company has changed their registered contact information multiple times over the past two years, raising concerns about their transparency and accountability.

Our legit list is intended to highlight companies that engage respectfully and in good faith with the Bitaxe project. A company that publicly makes unsubstantiated accusations against our development team doesn't align with those values.

[DerekLoadout]

I want to add my perspective here since I helped move the original Bitaxe.de listing forward in #20.

At the time, we were still testing and refining the review process. I interpreted the “website looks good to me” comment, together with passing formal validation, as enough signal to proceed. In hindsight, that was my mistake: I treated a lightweight website check as if it were a full trust/quality approval.

My review was mainly formal/listing-focused: schema, naming, logo, and PR structure. I acted in good faith based on the information available then, but I should have waited for a clearer maintainer-level decision.

The screenshots and context shared here raise serious trust-signal concerns, especially around previous “legit/verified seller” and donation-related claims. Since buyers use this list as a legitimacy reference, I think those points need a direct answer.

If the open points raised by @skot ot and @WantClue remain unanswered or unresolved, I would support removing/deactivating the listing and allowing the vendor to apply again later once the trust concerns are clearly addressed.

[bitaxeshop]

Sorry, our notifications were going to an unmonitored mailbox...

We do not want to repeat everything again or turn this thread into a fight. We understand the concerns about past wording, and we have already acknowledged that some of the old trust and donation language should have been clearer and should not have implied official endorsement before the official listing existed. That was not appropriate, and we apologize for it. We have always operated in line with the Bitaxe ethos and community expectations, even before any formal listing requirements applied to us.

At the same time, it is difficult to ignore the wider context and the apparent imbalance in how "trust concerns" are being evaluated.

Over the last two years, Bitaxe.de has faced repeated takedown attempts involving a core OSMU member, as well as trademark claims from a competitor who registered the Bitaxe brand and then used those registrations against us. This has been publicly denied, but we are prepared to provide evidence that has been presented in the ongoing lawsuit if requested. It appears that previously shared evidence has since been deleted.

In a separate report, that conduct was treated as a German legal issue and apparently not considered relevant to that vendor’s trust status. False donation claims, trademarking the Bitaxe brand, and even claiming authority to issue “licenses” to sell Bitaxe were also dismissed as “outside the scope of the vendor list”. We find that very difficult to understand, especially since similar trust-related questions are clearly being treated as relevant in this report.

From our perspective, the same standard is not being applied equally. To be honest, it feels like we cannot really "win" this discussion here, because at least one core OSMU member has already taken a clear position against us. Still, we ask that this review be based on consistent standards, not on competitor driven narratives, selective enforcement, or assumptions made against us.

To sum this up, the only visible trust concerns here appear to come from a competitor and his supporter within OSMU. Customer and community feedback do not support the allegation that Bitaxe.de is a fraud or scam vendor in any way.