Bitcoin Forum

http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/

BFL has delivered many pre-orders already and they are within the +-10% range of the advertised 5GH/s (+-10% running variance).

Don't deal with them, they don't listen to reason and just do what they please.

EDIT:



Let's break this apart a bit shall we?

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

• can be established to true/false
• no percentage or quantity defined, thus any quantity will result in true
• turned out to be: true

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "advertised" can be interpreted in many ways ie. what mediums are considered to be official advertisement
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than needed, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "performance" can be interpreted in many ways ie. Performance per Joule (GH/J), Gigahashes per secons (GH/s)
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than thought before, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

The bet should not have been allowed in the first place as per BitBets FAQ/EULA. After it was accepted, when it became clear that bettors couldn't agree what advertised performance was (see the comments about in the bet, people even here can't agree) the bet should have been cancelled.

Now if BitBet doesn't stick to their own policies and still wants to resolve the bet, "Yes" is a clear winner because it is supported by more sources and the only "No" source was negated when 28-03-2013 announcement stated that the devices will consume more power than previously advertised.

Let me know if you still think that the 28-03-2013 announcement doesn't say that the first products will perform worse in terms of GH/J and I will help you out.

The bet didn't say GH/s, the bet said "performance".

Given that one of the "performance" features that BFL advertised was power usage, and given that power usage is rougly 6x originally advertised, I think a fair case could be argued that the bet outcome was clearly a "no".

(I'm not a bettor by the way).

GH/s is the only spec that has ever been advertised on the product page. Forum posts by moderators have never counted as a real statement, you can look up similar cases with google.

Pretty sure "running off 2 USB plugs" implies power usage ~5W....

I don't think USB cables fall under the category of advertised performance

No, but when the only cables for the device are USB cables, that implies power performance  ~5W.

I know I don't have a copy of the original advertising/order page for the small BFL 5GH/s unit but "everyone knows" that they were advertised as running from the power of 2 USB plugs.

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs. Grow up and accept that you lost.

I guess this is what comes from poorly-worded bets.  I'm thinking those that lost the "won't deliver before end of March" bet (?) are feeling just as ripped off as you are now.

I would like to hear BitBet's reasoning for this decision.

Here's the earliest advertisement I could find which clearly makes no mention of power consumption, http://web.archive.org/web/20130117120834/http://www.butterflylabs.com/products/

Power consumption wasn't part of the advertised performance then and it isn't now. The only advertised performance was the hash rate. Given that the 5 GH/s units are currently shipping, then the bet most certainly should have resolved to a "yes".

I agree with you. BetBet has ripped off those who bet "yes".

We already had a long discussion over this in #bitcoin-assets so dunno why the need to repeat. What you have read and where have you ordered has nothing to do with what they advertised. Yes the page went from 1 usb cable, to two usb cables to usb cable and a brick. But all that is irrelevant. Peformance is at least gh/s/w or else a box of gpus will do.


Exactly.

And the FINAL advertised performance:
Sauce:
https://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

Now go hunt BFL to pay up thier bet or get scammer tagged.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public



Welcome.

I knew someone else would have "hard" evidence that the power performance figures were advertised.

I agree, advertised does not only mean "on their product page on their web site".  And I don't see how an official post by BFL on their own forums could be called "speculation".

I don't know what consumer law jurisdiction you all live in, but in mine, any representations made verbally by company representatives are binding.  That these representations were captured on these forums makes them indisputable.

The bet was created on 30-03-2013. The date in the first image is 09-30-2012 and the date in the second image is 10-19-2012. Both of those screenshots are completely irrelevant.

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Contacted a lawyer, will wait for his opinion about the brief to see whether it's worth it or not.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

Google 'bfl specification release'. You can press 'im feelin lucky'.

I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshots were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertised performance must be from an advertisement from that around that date. I want to see an advert posted from around 30-03-2013. If such an advert can't be produced, then there is no evidence to prove that such an advert exists.

If there is no evidence to prove that power-consumption claims were altered or explicitly removed between 2012 and end of March 2013, then the assumption must be that claims made in 2012 were still valid at the end of March 2013.  The presumption is that the bet was made on the most recent information available at the time - and thus far, the most recent information that has been presented here shows that power consumption claims were indeed made.

Thus anyone claiming that there were no or altered power consumption claims at the end of March 2013 must prove that some time after those images were taken, but before the end of March 2013, the power consumption claims were either retracted or altered by BFL.

Seems quite straightforward to me - and I don't have any financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this bet.

bitbet.us probably chose No since they had the biggest No vote on the bet. Conflict of interest?


20BTC No bet just happens to to come from MPEX that was founded by the very same person that runs bitbet.us and is here defending the No votes. Hmm you say? Here's the transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/01d55664107a02ebb68fe0f80f85d61ce41c1be0191e11294d1031d7cd8ebdf2

You can see it yourself by cliking on the 20BTC no bet on the bitbet.us link in the original post.

Just because the bet didn't go the way you think it should have, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. 

Doesn't mean there isn't either.   :D

But if you're going to try to argue that your position holds merit, you could at least provide some supporting evidence.  Nothing you've posted here in support of your assertion even comes close to the evidence posted that disproves your position.

That takes me to a forum post dated 09-29-2012. The specs have changed completely since then. That's no different than me claiming bitcoins are worth $1 because some forum post from 2012 says they were. It's utter nonsense.

Also, why didn't you alter the bet to say that power consumption was included if you knew you were going to resolve it that way? You've misled your users and you're coming up with nonsensical reasons to justify your position.

Such an ambiguous bet never should have been allowed in the first place. I also see that there's another bet going for July 1st and that's also the same ambiguous nonsense.

These bets are nothing but a scam.

There is proof though. https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1512-power-consumption-early-shipping-bfl-units-per-hash.html

As you can see, that was posted 03-29-2013.

I wasn't part of that discussion and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So, your admitting to conspiring to rip off your users by withholding vital information. We knew since at least 29-03-2013 (a day before the bet was made) that power consumption would be around 7.5W per chip. Do you think anyone would have bet "yes" if you stated that the "advertised performance" included power consumption from a forum post form 2012? And what about the claim that you actually bet on "no"? This whole affair stinks or corruption.

Also, you seriously need to go through all your existing bets and get rid of the ambiguous ones or shit like this is going to keep happening.

From BitBet's FAQ:


Now lets examine the bet:



That can easily be resolved to true or false, so that okay.


That's pretty much just a rehash of the title and can also easily be resolves to true or false.

Both the above statements resolve to true.


This statement is totally ambiguous and cannot be resolved to true or false. It relies on the subjective definition of "advertised performance". Therefore, this is a bad bet according to BitBet's FAQ and should never have been allowed in the first place.

Here are the facts:

• BitBet allowed a bad bet to made.
• BitBet intentionally misled it users by conspiring in an IRC channel to decide to include power consumption in the bet, then never bother to make that vital information available to its users.
• The owners chose to base their decision on initial specs posted to a forum in 2012 and ignored all other posts made before the bet was created stating that power consumption had changed.
• It has been claimed that BitBet owners allegedly bet 20 BTC on a "no" result.
• BitBet resolved the bet to "no".

The conclusion is obvious, these guys are definitely a bunch of scammers.

No scam, they failed to meet the power specs they quoted (big surprise, BFL lied again).

You are butthurt, OK, but please stop the public whining!

Neither has BFL delivered the promised performance (1GH/s per Watt), nor have they delivered "many pre-orders already".

From the thousands and thousands of pre-orders, how many does BFL claim to have shipped? Maybe around 30.
How many of those did not go to devs, magazines and other members of the family&friends program? Maybe around 10.
How many of those 10 have actually been delivered to pre-order customers? Maybe 5.

Anyway. I would neither call 5, nor 10 nor 30 "many pre-orders" given the total number of orders in the thousands.

Hey Frizz :D

Yet another BFL related event turned to shit..... Its like Inaba is the Midas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas) of shit.

Yeah, just ignore the fact that power specs were never mentioned in the bet.
Just ignore the fact that this bet was resolved on obsolete information posted to a forum in 2012.
Just ignore the fact that updated information had been posted to the exact same forum before the bet was created stating that the initial power consumption specs couldn't be met.
Just ignore the fact that BitBet is clearly ignoring its own BadBet policy by allowing ambiguous bets.

Of course he's "butthurt", he just got ripped off by a scammer.

Right now you are choosing to ignore that power consumption is a factor of performance for an electrical device.

Linky ?

So ? That makes you a fool for betting in favour of the bet then.



Here I am with you 100%, wagering sites should not allow ambiguous bets, players should also not be placing wagers on ambiguous bets either. Betsofbitco.in is also in a similair position for allowing an ambiguous bet to be placed then nullifying it later due to being ambigious.

What I would have expected is all the quoted performance factors affecting the wagers outcome should have been itemized in the description.

See kakobrekla's initial response. kakobrekla claims that "the FINAL advertised performance" was "Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w" and posted two screenshots as the source. That's clearly false.


Actually, I didn't bet on this.

The world is full of crooks and they make me mad. Here's a quote from the FAQ of http://butterflylabs.com/faq/ (http://butterflylabs.com/faq/):


Product page has no power consumption specification and FAQ says that BFL is not releasing any power specs for the units. I don't care what people have guessed on forums, the advertising clearly never had power consumption as part of the specs.

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

Erm, the bet was made in 2013 and even before the bet BFL rumored in their forums about higher power usage (see previous posts). Rumored, like they rumored about power usage in the posts you're so keen on quoting.

Does the bet go "+-10% of the rumored performance"? Thought so.

So the question is if they advertised the power consumption on 30-03-2013 (the day when bet was started):


Product page from 3/29: http://web.archive.org/web/20130411110627/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html


Rikur has a point here, there is nothing about the power on the product page.

Also Josh's posts here does imply that BFL will have issues with power on 3/28:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

edit:

Personally I think that the two usb cable doesn't imply any power usage, the description is confusing: Provide two cables, but plug only one into the computer?

That's why the resolution SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE ADVERTISED SPECS as per the description: product page and FAQ say that power usage will not be disclosed yet. If a single employee goes guessing about it, that's a different story.

Correct! (see: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html)


Correct again! Thats why ramblings and mumblings of Josh are discarded as irrelevant.
(I mean, apparently they are of null importance as I can see their charity bet aint getting no traction)


See, we do agree on the end!

rikur, the advertisement is on the forum post (https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html).

If it's using more than (.10*4.5) + 4.5 then it is not within 10% of the advertised performance.

The forum's post prior to the bet:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

edit:

Here is the product page on 3/29:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130411110627/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html

Can you please identify the product in your post? Since I cannot.

Product page says:

Product name: 5 GH/s Bitcoin Miner - BitForce 5 GH/s SC
Processing Power: 5 GH/s (+/- 10% running variance)

No where it says that it's BitForce Jalapeno / BitForce Single SC / BitForce MiniRig SC

Neither bet was ambiguous at the time it was allowed. The only thing that changed is that BFL found yet another way to scam. Betsofbitco.in empowered this scam (which comes as little surprise, they were in BFL's pocket anyway, as detailed other places on this forum). BitBet did not.

If tomorrow somebody makes a bet saying "Ford will deliver most 2014 Ford Fiesta preorders during 2014. Product must meet advertised performance to qualify as delivered." it will be accepted, as it's not ambiguous. In sane everyday reality Ford will do exactly that, or else issue a statement explaining they've canceled the series/failed delivery/production/whatever. If Ford were to come up with an announcement saying the 2014 Ford Fiesta is now a Husqvarna lawnmower from 2007, refurbished, then we'd be in BFL scamland.

The reason Ford doesn't do this sort of crap is simply that Ford is a company, not a scam. The reason BFL does do this sort of crap is simply that BFL is a scam, not a company. It is impractical to go around specifying everything a scammer may in time change. For instance, no delivery bet contains a rider saying that "should the product delivered have a long rubber hose affixed transforming it into a YoYo then delivery is invalid". This does not make the bet ambiguous, and even should BFL add rubberbands to their products and try to foist them from the customers' hands later the bet still wouldn't be "ambiguous". BFL would be scammy. That is all.

So, what you're saying is that because you're some idiotic BFL troll with a grudge, people who bet that BFL would deliver deserve to ripped off?

The bet was completely ambiguous and was resolved based on the specs of a cancelled product. The product that is shipping is not the same product that BitBet is basing it's decision on. Also, BitBet knew they were going to resolve this based on the power consumption of a product that no longer exists and never bother to inform their users, deliberately misleading them.

Too bad Jalapeños were cancelled. The ASIC that shipped was not the product you have based your decision on. The product that shipped is called a "BitForce 5 GH/s SC".

Please provide evidence of advertised power consumption for this device which was actually shipped, instead of the initial cancelled device from 2012.

Also, are you not going to address the allegation that you bet 20 BTC on "no"?

So you admit that you based your decision on rumours instead of fact?

No, but I admit you can't read.

I can read fine. Can you? If so, then explain why you're decision was based on information about the Jalapeno - a product which was cancelled and before the bet was even made, rather than information about the product which existed at the time the bet was created - the BitForce 5 GH/s SC. What was the "advertised performance" of the BitForce 5GH/s SC?

Also, while you're explaining things, explain why are you allowing ambiguous bets, which according to your policy in the FAQ are bad bets and never should have been allowed in the first place.

Oh yeah, you may also want to respond to the allegation that you bet 20 BTC on "no".

So you just admitted that forum posts are just ramblings (BFL_Office and BFL_Josh are the same person from all we know) and they can be discarded, yet you resolved the bet on one and ignored the much more trustworthy sources ie. product pages and product FAQ which clearly state that power consumption will not be released yet.

When will you admit your bad judgement and pay out the bet for the Yes voters? I'm sure bitbet(read: you) has the BTC to do it since your policies facilitate stealing of bettor money in case of over-betting or last minute betting (the largest portion of last dividends came from these fraudulent rules, no?).

Here's my bet. I might have had another smaller "Yes" bet and can track it down later, but the biggest Yes bet was made by me:
03-04-13 08:50   Yes   84`489   2.00000000   1EjDg    0.00000000   1DeYV

The 5GH/s device is unfortunately not available from The Internet Archive before date April 4th:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130404210143/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html

No mention of power usage, advertised specs only include GH/s with +/- 10% variance (the bet added another +/- 10% on top of this, since the advertised specs already had the variance on it). The delivered products have been reported to have 5.6 to 5.8 GH/s performance, which is within +/- %20 of 5GH/s.

However, the official FAQ has not been changed since Jan 2013 and there they clearly state that they will not release power consumption at this time:


http://web.archive.org/web/20130117120603/http://www.butterflylabs.com/faq/

All recorded history of the Product Page for the delivered 5GH/s has no wattage mentioned, not when bet was created, not when I betted on, not when bet was closed/resolved nor now. Same goes for FAQ page.

The runner of the website admits that forum ramblings can be ignored:


All in all, the +-10% extra condition on the bet is very ambiguous and against the "Bad Bet" policy of the BitBet:

"First and foremost, statements that can not univocally be established as either true or false at a certain point in the future are BadBets and as such unacceptable on BitBet."

Without attaching a proof of the advertised performance, the bet cannot be univocally established as true or false. Thus the bet should have been a) cancelled or b) ambiguous extra conditions ignored.

• BitBet accepted a "Bad Bet" that's against their policy at http://bitbet.us/faq/
• BitBet resolved the "Bad Bet" to "No" based solely on the ambiguous part of the bet, breaking their own policies twice
• BitBet based their decision on the specs of a cancelled product posted to a forum in 2012
• BitBet ignored all other posts made before the bet was created stating that those products had been cancelled and replaced, and that power consumption had changed
• BitBet has since admitted that forum speculation can be discarded
• BitBet is still running a duplicate of this May 1st "Bad Bet" dated for July 1st, which is against their policy
• BitBet will probably try to resolve the July 1st based "Bad Bet" on the same unfounded grounds, breaking their own policy once again

It has been pointed out that the biggest(20 BTC) "No" vote comes from MPEx, run by the same people running BitBet. This could be a coincidence, but could also mean that they should have disqualified themselves from betting/resolving this bet in the first place.

This news to me, now I have another site to blacklist.

you voted on a somewhat ambiguous bet; and that's what you get

the power consumption is part of the performance

you could buy a 4.5ghash rig with a board/psu and a bunch of 7990's but it would consume a lot of power

G/hash per watt is just about the STANDARD way to measure performance of a bitcoin miner

in the best case for OP, all bets should be refunded to owners (too late now right)

https://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg ( http://www.reddit.com/r/BetterBitcoinBureau/comments/1dj0tq/bitbetus/ )

BitBet administrator responds to another users email with:

You're ignoring the fact that at the time the bet was made, the specification had already changed. Resolving this bet on the specs from 2012 is no different than claiming bitcoins are only worth $1 because that's how much they were at some point in 2012.

Are bitcoins worth $1? No! Was the "advertised" power consumtion 1W when the bet was made? No!

Also, I disagree with GH/W being the standard way to measure mining performance. That's a measure of mining efficiency, not performance. Look at GPUs for example, the best performers are not the most efficient, they're simply the fastest.

Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost.

Your credibility is pretty much epsilon after the entire racism fiasco, not like anybody gives a shit what nonsense you sprout. Knock yourself out.

@OP: You can allege anything you wish. So can anyone else. For instance I could claim you're pirate. What of it?


It's on the blog (http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/i-am-the-best-customer-rep-in-the-world), dummy.


So you're the Mark Sanders muppet? Congrats, you're an interwebs celebrity nao.

PS. The claim isn't that you lost, the claim is that you're an idiot.

Of course that's me. If you've only just figured that out, you must have the mental capabilities of a 5 year old. And if you think I'm going to become an Internet celebrity because you posted an email to your shitty blog, then you must be seriously delusional as well.


Then why did you write, "So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great."?

Now instead of posting my name as if that means something and patting yourself on the head, why don't you address the points being made which show that you're nothing but a scummy piece of shit who conspired to rip off your users?

I'm glad you posted that email, it just goes to show how unprofessional you and your scammy outfits are.

Look at all these people swimming with sharks and then complaining when they're bitten. :D

"You didn't tell me these sharks had teeth. I demand an immediate detoothing."

She deserved to be raped officer, she was wearing a short skirt!

Oh good, the rape card.

Can't wait for the "bitbet deciding against me is as bad as the holocaust" 'argument'.

Betting on something that does NOT clarify in clear numbers what "advertised rates" etc. mean is just looking for trouble...

Just clarify before betting what this "advertised performance" (e.g. on bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/) is in clear numbers, if they don't want to do that, well don't bet or prepare to fund the "option emporium" of our unfriendly neighbourhood romanian.
Also please be aware that "+/- 10%" also means that if suddenly performance is much BETTER than expected, you can still loose!

Actually, plenty of people have asked, plenty of people have been told exactly what it means.

(This is how everyone* knows that the +-10% A. is only there to match the - at the time - official BFL release and B. is construed in favor of BFL, which is to say no more wattage, no less hashing. You couldn't lose the bet if they made a chip that's less energy intensive, faster or both).

*everyone who bothered to ask, of course.

The I'd recommend to put the exact numbers (and a link to the announcement that is referenced for the "advertised performance") in the bet description or at least having a way to clarify arising issues like this directly in the bet's description (e.g. "Editor's note: To clarify, performance means X GH/s per Y Watts, the advertised products when opening this bet were Product 1: ... Product 2: ... and Product 3: ...").

This isn't how it works, scam makes statements that contradict previous statements and everyone downstream suddenly scrambles to modify, clarify and so forth. Onus is on BFL.

That aside, next time someone makes a bet with BFL crap yes they'll have to specify all this.

I have nothing to do with bitbet.us or MPOE. I'm just "some guy on the internet". I am 17BGf71aGDBHjoLNugGt94GgsJv8mQf6QZ

I have a single preorder, I was worried it was a scam, my bet was a hedge against that. Before I made the bet I hopped onto IRC to ask about what was meant by "advertised performance" and was told it was what was in place at the time of the bet the logic being [or they could just change the spec and ship anything] i cant remember the exact words.

What you are doing, rikur, is arguing semantics. You remind me of spineless defense lawyers trying to get people to acquit rapists because the girl "didn't explicitly say no to the sex act, and it doesn't say anything about kicking and screaming meaning no in the lawbook". That lawyer is trying to go by the letter of the law instead of following the spirit of the law. The one thing this world is not short of is people who ignore the spirit of the law, because it serves their own ends. You are making the world a worse place by being like that. Just stop it.

This bet was made in good faith. BFL were selling a product that set itself above others based on the fact you got a buttload of hash rate in a tiny energy efficient box.

Hat's off to BFL for delivering a buttload of hash. However, the box is bigger and it uses a bunch more power. As a customer I am disappointed that they didn't hit their power claims. *Where* they made those claims is irrelevant, they did make those claims, and I ordered based on those claims.

The thing is I could now go them and be all arsey about that, and demand a refund yadayada

I'm not going to do that for two reasons:

1. it still looks like a good product (as opposed to the great one I ordered)
2. (most importantly) they had the common decency to keep everyone updated, tell us all about what was going on, be honest about the power consumption issues they were facing and that they weren't going to hit spec

There is nothing I can say to sway you from your incessant campaign against bitbet, MPOE, anyone else who disagrees with you and now me. If nothing else though I feel it only fair that the baseless accusation that he is betting on his own site is put to rest.

Of course in your head I'm only saying this because I won. The best thing about that is, at least that is in your head.

Remember folks gamble responsibly - don't bet what you can't afford to lose ;)

Pretty cool of you stepping up like that. Props.

Congrats on the win, however I still disagree on how the resolution was done on a specific 2012 forum posts, completely ignoring later (made before the bet) which contradict it.

- A "Bad Bet" should not have been allowed in the first place
- Before the bet was closed and it became clear that the bet is a "Bad Bet", it should have been cancelled and funds returned
- If still resolved, it should have been resolved on the non-ambiguous parts only (+10% advertised performance is the only ambiguous part of the bet, everything else can be univocally be resolved to true or false)

But no, the "Bad Bet" was allowed against their FAQ and resolved against their FAQ.

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.

You seem to do a lot with Bitcoin and you often have strong opinions which could be seen by many as flamebait but if they look deeper they will see you often have a pretty solid basis for whatever you are claiming. I like that. So when people start making BS accusations the least I can do is set them straight.

If you looked deeper into this, you'd see that it was not on a solid basis at all.

No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread.

I haven't seen a single good answer in this thread that would answer the above questions, feel free to point me to one. When I'm less busy, I will draft a timetable of events / posts and to make it more clear what happened.

You keep presenting your opinion of things as inherent properties of those things.

You keep qualifying things.

You do not see anyone else's point of view other than your own.

The difference is that I, and no doubt others here,  could argue *your* side better than you are.

Only if you fully understand both sides can you draw a rational conclusion. If you refuse to understand the 'resolve to no' side, then of course you will inevitably continue to think that it should have been yes.

Why do I need to look deeper? What is it that you think your timetable is going to show that hasn't already been re-hashed a million times. You're whole case is based on your opinion of what constitutes advertising - to which you have added arbitrary conditions. Your opinion of what constitutes performance - to which you have applied conditions.

The decision that was made was unconditional, rational and in the circumstances fair on balance. All things being equal anyone without a vested interest would likely have drawn the same conclusion because it was clear that what was promised was not what was delivered, however close it may have been in some selected aspects.

I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but I am UK and we have various legislative bodies that deal with this (under the auspice of the office of fair trading), and a large number of statutory instruments to protect consumers from the predatory practices of companies who misrepresent products in order to deceive and potentially defraud customers.

The key thing here is that this body even exists, the implication being that this kind of practice would occur if it was unregulated. Legal precedent is quite clear with regards false advertising. If a company made claims about its product on its website (note ther is no qualification that it must be on a 'product page' or other specific medium, that those claims could quite easily be used as evidence against them in a court of law were that company to then deliver a product that did not live up to those claims. There isn't a solicitor (lawyer) in the land that would be stupid enough to try and argue otherwise.

Thats pretty much what has happened here. BFL said our products do XYZ on their website. The product page only listed X and Y (though Z was still implied at the time the bit was created). On the same day the bet was created we got the first 'rumours' they were having trouble with power, but the attitude was very much that of - we are working to get it down. (This would imply that they had some target? no?) as april rolled around there was more chatter of we are getting the power down. Then things started to change, products started being rejigged, the BFL line was we aren't going to hit 1w but it wont be loads more. Talk of changing up the factor, PSU cooling being needed on the previously passively cooled jalapeño.

At this point my thought process was as follows: "Hmm, looks like they aren't gonna hit spec, and there is a bet here that says as much, why I can't lose... I wonder what spec means *jumps on IRC, has suspecions concerned* hmm think ill plunk 20 down on that..."

That kind of chatter made it pretty clear they weren't gonna hit the performance they'd promised (sure they would hit one of the metrics, and if you were to arbitrarily decide that one metric was important and another wasn't - as you have - then you could say they hit performance. Why would you do that though, its the equivalent to lying by omission.) BFL even said it.

So when they virtua-shipped a device end of march to luke-jr (does that even count), then as april progressed they irl-shipped a few boxes to others (uh oh 6x power consumption though and is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?), and by the end of april they had gone crazy and got double digits out the door. They satisfied the 'shipped' and 'asic' part, but, as I said on the bet discussion at the time:

"All these ASICs and none of 'em to spec. So sad."

So there is an answer. Whether you deem it "good" well, thats just your opinion 'innit.

So you clearly didn't look deeper into the issue. BitBet already said that forum ramblings can be discarded (leaving product page and FAQ as the best sources of information). But if you really want to look at their forum posts.. The bet was resolved based on this old post posted on 29-09-2012:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html

However, newer posts right prior to the creation of the bet point out that BFL cannot meet their earlier power usage speculation, were posted  on 29-03-2013:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

Now the bet was created on 30-03-2013, thus the latest "advertised" specification that the bet should be based on clearly said that BFL cannot meet the earlier power usage speculations, but promised to deliver products that will outperform competition in terms of megahash/J.

So if you want to go the speculation route and take forum posts into account, then the post on 29-03-2013 negates the post that BitBet based their decision on. BFL had not promised any megahash/J and the remaining advertised specs all check out green -> "Yes" should have won.

And again, if they should have chosen to disregard forum posts "Yes" would be a clear winner again based on the Product Page details and FAQ saying that no power consumption will be announced yet.

To add to the stupidity of basing the outcome on the old forum post: the product classes advertised on that post were cancelled and new line of products were introduced before the bet was created, ie. 4.5GH/s Jalopeno got replaced with 5GH/s Bitcoin Miner.

I'm a very reasonable person, but I really think that me and other "Yes" bettors were wronged and apparently will be wronged on the July 1st bet too.

Now if BitBet can come up with a logical, reasonable explanation for what I think was poor and biased judgement, I will apologize and be on my way.

TLDR; "Yes" should have won whether you look at forum posts or product pages for "advertised performance".

Bump. Waiting for a response from BitBet.

I agree wholly with this 2 points you have made.

Im still watching the results, may I have some specific links to where BFL changes their power quotes ?
Something official please if you can find it.

The fact that you had to jump on to an IRC channel to get that vital information instead of it being presented in the actual bet proves that BitBet misled it's users. If BitBet were an advertiser, that would be the equivalent of false advertising, and Ofcom would bitch slap them for it.


Exactly. By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications. I know that, you know that and BitBet also knows that. BitBet simply ignored this fact, and used the specifications from about 6 months earlier.


You've already pointed out that the specs had changed by the time the bet was made.

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4bgho5JSI) an official video from the 30/03/13 demonstrating the ASIC and clearly showing the power consumption. This is the video mentioned in the 28th March update I guess.

Here's (https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1512-power-consumption-early-shipping-bfl-units-per-hash.html) a thread on the BFL forum discussing the revised power consumption. Those discussion seem to based on statement made in the ShoutBox. You can see the transcript here (http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1b8hvt/bfl_josh_updates_on_asic_status_full_transcript/).

To that part there's of course the now famous BFL/Vleisides interview he ran back in September that'd have to be contended with.

Yeah, right, because if it's not going to be favorable to the scam you wish to push then it should not be allowed. Get a life. Scammer.

Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:

I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause.  Now why would that bet be rejected?  Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...

As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs.  If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised.  If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion.  I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.

Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh. 

Don't misrepresent what i say it discredits your argument. The words I say are the words I meant, your interpretation, and then rephrasing of what I say are your words, and are most definitely not what I meant.

As I said about riker, I say about you, you are arguing semantics.

You say "BitBet misled it's users". I say when the bet was created there was no confusion about the spec.

You say "By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications" they had not. So when you claim that I know that, that is patently false.

You then go on to reiterate this falsehood, like you have some how proven it. You have not.

Specs were announced, at no point prior to the creation of the bet (30th march) had there been any indication that BFL were changing the spec of the products they were shipping.

BFL had made announcements that the prototype was using more power, and they had also stated that they were working to reduce this power. That does not equate to "We have changed the spec".

You are failing at basic reading comprehension. That is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact as evidenced by the fact that you read words and then claim those words mean something they do not. As you fail at reading comprehension, then you are ill qualified to have any sort of credible opinion on this subject.

Unless of course you do comprehend the meaning of words, but are attempting to intentionally misrepresent them, merely to further your own argument.

Which is it?

The video shows power consumption, I agree. Where in the video does it state that this is the new spec?

The forum thread discusses power consumption, I aree. Where in the thread does it state this is the new spec?

Comprehension is critical. You fail it.

Can I have an opinion too?

If you allow a bet that does not nail down what is being delivered, then the bit can quite easily be rigged by BFL sending out a shoebox the day before.

The bet was made 30th March. The revised jalapeño spec was put out in April. At that point you could argue the spec had 'officially changed' should you want to.

How about that 1000btc bet you made?

https://twitter.com/BFL_News/status/318601948678983681

To be fair they said they were honouring it.

To be even fairer they also said 1 W = 1 Gh/s, and that they'll be honoring that too.

As far as I recall it was never a matter of BFL deciding which Vleisides-run scamrity they're giving 1000 imaginary BTC to.

For that matter it's probably worth pointing out that BFL has a grandiose history of using shells and shills. Consider the case of the non-interview promoted by that Perry fellow, consider the simple case of Betsofbitco.in, where they made bets about how they were going to deliver in full knowledge that if they don't they'll have the bet pushed and their BTC refunded. False sense of security induced in the sort of muppets who actually buy Mem's, Perry's & Coinjedi's lies? Ka-ching. Costs? Whatever scraps this sort of people take, half a bitcoin split in three.

I've contacted the Romanian regulatory authorities to find out the contact information of Polimedia SRL and the status of their online betting license.

That's the step #1 according to a lawyer I'm in talks with.

Looking forward to the threads about how some Internet lawyer scammed you out of .5 BTC by pretending to be Internet-paid for his Internet-expertise.

Another awesome set of lies by MOPE.. I mean MPOE.

We will be donating 1000 BTC to charity, sorry it's not on the high priority list, you know, above getting product out.  If you think it's easy to choose who to give $100,000+ to, you'd be wrong.

BFL has zero history of shells and shills.  I don't even know what the hell you mean by that.  BFL has nothing to do with Betsofbitco.in, that is utterly ludicrous.  BFL made no bets for or against anything.  Just another of the long list of fails in your book.  How's that "net worth" of your little company working out?  Still worth more than the entire bitcoin network, even though it loses money each month? heh

You guys do have an online gambling license, right? And you are aware that a limited liability company is not allowed to sell shares of their company, even less so the shares of other companies.

If I had shares held in MPEx, I'd consider cashing out.

at the end of it all...Atlas just shrugged

You use the words gamble, and sell. To me that implies money being involved, are you saying that?. Are you sure bitcoin is legally money?

http://www.rolegal.com/romania-gambling-license.html

But then again it was only the first google hit, didn't look much further so not 100% sure. I would definitely look into this if I was running BitBet.

http://www.ocra.com/jurisdictions/romanian-limited-liability.asp

I was wrong about issuing shares though (max 50 shareholders).

Don't stop with the cocky remarks now.. You were having such a good run, all the way to being the best customer rep in the world.

My uncle I say, that seriously burned. Please no more of this clever use of letter-changing-around and blinkenlichten, I give.


You should move on to a better internet community college if all they teach you is googlelaw. The better programs go deep into wikipedialaw from what I hear.

Hello Josh, thank you for weighing in here.

So they rejected a bet where the power was specified as part of (or not part of) the performance in favour of a misleading bet that would potentially confuse users. Sounds like a scam to me.


Not surprising in the least, when arrogant racism is one of your core defining traits like MPEx then you cant expect many good (if any) personal traits.

bitbet.us should have followed betsofbitco.in's example and rulled the bet invalid.
Its my firm opinion if the result is open to interpretation then it should automatically be ruled a draw.
Site operators like MPEx should spend less time typing up their racist rants and more time ensuring the quality of their sites bets.

Please PM me with any further details, I shall also be monitoring this  thread periodically.

I was one of the Yes betters (0.6 btc).  I'd like to explain what led me to bet yes After the first units started shipping.

As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers.  I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications.  What i heard back unanimously (from my small sample) is that performance doesn't relate to power consumption, that would be Performance Per Watt, which is different.  It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance.  Energy is just a utility to achieve performance, not the performance itself.

I understand that the reason BFL looked so good is because of the performance per watt, but just because we want low wattage for maximum profits, and just because that's what we based our pre-orders on, still doesn't mean it's relevant to "Advertised Performance".

There seems to be a lot of negativity in this thread, so i would appreciate calm responses :)

Just as there is no point in you saying the same thing that's already been said, there is equally no point in restating why it doesn't matter what you think.

Thread's dead baby.

I'm just waiting for the rest of the ripped off people to show up from the July 1st bet. That is of course if the feds don't shut down polimedia / BitBet / MPEx before that.. maybe even SatoshiDice gets shut down thanks to the irresponsibility of the MPOE guys.

You're completely correct about that, however the resolution was based on a forum post from 2012, ignoring everything that was updated since then.

Depending on how much you should have won, you could consider taking action against these foul mouthed scammers. I placed the early 2 BTC Yes bet and am still considering legal action, but giving it some time as this thing could unravel on its own. Feel free to PM me about it.

Also, please be aware that if you send them an email requesting a refund etc, you might get publicly defaced like this https://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg (posted on the shitty pay per view blog by the douchebag running these unlicensed, illegal services).

While I would jump at the chance under different circumstances, i don't want to take place in any legal action that could result in negative press for BTC in general.  I waited over 20 years for this currency and i'm willing to take a few hits in its infancy.


Yeah i saw that on reddit.  As a side note, i shared an email exchange with them that implied to me that they had decided a resolution before the bet had resolved.  I'm not saying i believe that, i just expected a more responsive reply and it seemed dismissive to me.  I'll share it, despite the embarrassing instawallet mistake lol:

http://s14.postimg.org/desh99u41/iwalemail.png

edit used the wrong word

>>that implied to me that they had decided a resolution before the bet had ended.

How? Your payout could be anything from 0 or whatever it would be if you would/will/had won.

Also to be fair, you got my reply on email in less than 5 min (3 to be exact and 2 minutes now on the forum). I'd say its a great customer service. And btw, if you read the faq, you will find the explanation there on how to calc your payout for youself, so we don't have to that for each and everyone that wishes to know.

Oh the FAQ with the rules?!


The "advertised performance" can't be univocally established to true or false. The rest of the bet can be. That should yield two possible outcomes: a) The bet is cancelled because it's against your policy OR b) the bet is resolved on the non-ambiguous parts of it to "Yes".

My old "Yes" payout address is still valid.

All i was really saying for sure is that if they were going to cancel or if it was undecided then most support would simply give me the numbers so that when the bet is concluded i could file my claim, assuming 2 of the 3 possible decisions.  At that point i didn't see how No could possibly win, so i thought cancellation was most likely, before the email.

*edit*
or point me to the formula to calculate my own

But you can get those numbers yourself!


http://bitbet.us/faq/#14

Not trying to argue, don't think my point is even valid, just opinion lol.

If that link was in the email then i wouldn't have brought it up, not a big deal, but now i feel guilty for keeping this thread alive with a pointless argument :/

A well, it happens.

Don't feel bad. You were wronged and you're supposed to feel mad if anything.

This thread is not dead at all. People are still waiting for answers from BitBet.

I see your #14 and raise you a #22 (http://bitbet.us/faq/#22).

It seems like "planes hurting each other" does not constitute a "BadBet", just like the poorly worded (and still not conclusively clarified!) July 1st BFL bet...

bitbet.us/bet/148/one-plane-from-p-r-china-will-be-hurt-by/

Add me to the list that think power is not performance and that old forum posts for a canceled product probably aren't the greatest source for the currently advertised specifications.

Add me to the list of those who think this thread is simply full of lulz.

I read the bet - didn't seem ambiguous at the time. OR profitable.

classic parts? the email re: fuckin your wife, and Inaba sticking up for ...well...the generation 2 bfl scam.

Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose. Bet on an unsure outcome, and lose your money. Whine about it, and look like a fool.

You obviously asked the wrong people, for one, and you obviously omitted informing them that the specifications did in fact include a power usage for the other. Either of these make the results of the ask operation undefined.


You didn't get to the Internet-sue on grounds of Grand Butthurt part I take it.


Yes, governments of sovereigns have this bizarre property that they are legally allowed to kill people and destroy property. Who knew!

As to the July bet: if you ask specific questions, you get specific answers. If you declare something to be X you mostly get ignored, as you're not on my list of people who get to make binding declarative statements.

Okay then scammer, I have 2 specific questions I would like specific answers to.

1) For the July 1st BFL bet, what exactly is the advertised performance?
2) Why isn't this essential information listed on the actual bet?

Well then, idiot:


Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced.


It is.

Also, you're going on my ignore, which means now you can't even get a second chance at asking a question. Practically speaking you're both deaf and mute now. Cool going, huh.

MPOE and BitBet are run by scammy cunts as proven by the complete and utter bullshit just posted by this representative.

Which is what? Post the specifications or a link to them so we can see what the decision will be based on.

The bet seems to have lots of possibilities for misunderstanding:

1) will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers

To all of their customers?  To at least one of their customers?

2) Devices must be in scope

One of them?  All of them?  Presumably the performance will vary between the fastest and the slowest.  Or the most efficient and the least efficient.

3) of at least +-10%

"at least plus or minus 10%"?  What does that mean?  If the advertised performance was 100 (whatevers), then it has to be "at least 90 or 110"?  Isn't that the same as just "at least 90"?

4) of advertised

Advertised where?  And when?  Got a link?  Or a copy/paste?  I've no idea where to find it (except maybe http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html which says:


What is at least +-10% of roughly 40 GH/s?  Is it roughly at least 36 or 44 GH/s?  Is 35 GH/s roughly at least 36 GH/s?  What?  Not even roughly?

5) performance

Is that hashes per second or hashes per Joule?  I guess it depends on which advertisement the bet is referring to.  If it's the above Yahoo 'PRWeb' thing then it looks like they're talking about just hashes per second.  But it would be useful to know which advertised performance statistic the bet is referring to.

There's still a over a month left on the bet.  Wouldn't it be best to clear up the ambiguities before the bet is settled?

Bump: BitBet, please let us know the advertised performance for the May 1st BFL bet and July 1st BFL bet. And if you could please elaborate on your sources a bit, that would be nice.

^^^
That's the answer I got 2 weeks ago on that exact topic... see page 4

I was hoping for a new answer since the ones you just pasted are lopsided and based on old information.

July 1st bet seems to be created on 15-03-2013, thus BitBet could argue that the increased GH/J was not mentioned by BFL back then. This still leaves the already closed May 1st bet open for debate, since it was created on 30-03-2013 and by that time BFL had already announced that they can't meet the GH/J promised earlier and only promised to deliver higher GH and GH/j than the competitors.

oh its you again with the 'spec changed before 30th March' claim.

Repeating the same thing over and over agin doesn't make it true.

link plox

the best I can find is (28th March) https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html

where josh says they are using more power than they would like, he also say specifically "...if we end up having to scale back any given class of unit..."

pay careful attention to the words - they tell you things. that "if" is critical. that means they haven't changed the spec yet.

Only on 1st April does Josh say they have 'missed their power specs' (shoutbox / retweeted by @BFL_News if you care to check) at which point its fair to say that the specs *will* change (but technically still haven't).

So you see you keep saying 'at the time the bet was posted RAH RAH RAH' but what you are saying doesn't actually add up. I am not debating with you, there is nothing to debate. I keep posting facts, and you keep posting your opinion.

From the same link you just posted:


Please take a 2nd read. It clearly says that if you're ok with increased power use, no action is needed. Customers were asked to take action only in the case that they wanted wait to get products with the earlier specs (same performance, higher efficiency) or if they wanted a refund since the product specs have changed.

"Even with the increased power demand.." also states that first products will have higher power demand than previously thought, but they still promised to outperform competing products in terms of power (performance) and megahash/J (efficiency).

What did I miss?

Attention is needed, the "critical if" sentence says that they might have to send you many units in order to achieve advertised performance(GH/s) because the efficiency (GH/J) has changed and they might not fit the power envelope of the board.

In other words: Because of increased power usage, they might have to scale back (underclock/less chips per board) and send you two units instead of one.

EDIT:

RAH RAH RAH. Now at least one of your points is not moot. ;)

I'll humour you.

I'm going to assume you want me to focus on the bold bits:

If you absolutely do not want a unit that is consuming more power than expected, you can let us know you'd like to wait for a revised unit or you are welcome to request a refund.

It means these units they made they are going to ship to people who are cool with that. The fact he gave you the option to wait for a revised unit would suggest that they are still working to hit the original spec.

If he had phrased it like "if you do not want one of these units then you better request a refund, because this is as good as it gets" then I would agree that would imply the spec had changed.


Even with the increased power demand on these first units, they will still out perform any competing products by a very wide margin in terms of power and megahash/J.

It does indeed say these units consume more than before, but it does not say that this is now the new standard. In fact the phraseology used specifically sets apart these 'first units' as being distinct from 'some other units'. The implication being those other units will be to spec, because of course, they have not at this point stated that they are giving up on hitting that spec.

So when I linked you to that post, I said this was the 'best I can find'. What I mean by that is that you can try and take that post and infer that the spec has changed/is changing/will change. It doesn't actually say it though. So if there is no evidence that something happened, then the default position is that a thing did not happen - the burden of proof lies with you. Prove they changed the spec prior to 30th March.

The 1st April post doesn't even say they are changing spec. What it does is it proves, that at the point that he said that, he considered that those specs could still be 'missed'. Its an implicit acknowledgement that until that point at least, the specs were still in play.

Consequence follows action, it is the natural order of things.

Action: we misssed spec.
Consequence: we change spec.

Now you could get into some deep buddhist shit about the nature of causality, and try and argue that the changing of the spec and the missing of the spec have no causal link (see: Naagaarjuna for more on that!) and I'll certainly not be able to deny it. Still it ain't gonna get you your witch burnt is it?

I don't have to prove anything, you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.

The 'if' creates doubt. Therefore nothing that follows it can be taken as proof for one side or the other.

You need to find proof the spec changed, not your opinion on whether the spec will theoretically change "if" XYZ...

To make it clear there is a distinction between:

a. we might have to do "this and that", and
b. we are doing "that and this"

in column a, we have not been told that anything has changed, we have been given a mysterious future where things may change. "things may change" is intrinsically the same as "things may not change" it is a state of flux, that cannot be conclusively argued one way or another until the cat is out of the box, and we can see whether it is alive or dead.

however, as the cat was alive when it went into the box then I can just say it is alive and I am not required to prove it, the lid shuts a live cat went in. The cat was alive when it went in, and until it is actually dead, then it is not *in fact* dead.

To prove it is dead, requires the box to be opened. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to claim it is dead. until the box is open the pro-dead lobby can argue all they want about the condition of the cat, but it can never be said that the cat is dead.

That is what is happening here, the spec is/was the spec until such time as it wasn't. All that conjecture about whether it was going to change, well that doesn't actually change it.

It was around April 4th when BFL moved over into column B. They had tried to get the power down (to the original spec) and had improved lots but realised they could not. Then they said "this is the new power spec" and "these are your options".

That was when they opened the box. That was the day the cat died.

I am not sure know if you're blind, stupid or just trolling, but let me wrap it up for you:

1. 28-03-2013 BFL announced that the at least the first rounds of products they are about to deliver will use more power than previously thought.
2. 30-03-2013 The BitBet was created
3. 27-04-2013 The first reports of delivered products hit the internets, including https://forums.butterflylabs.com/jalapeno-single-sc-support/2088-guess-who%92s-got-two-thumbs-jalapeno%85%85-guy%85.html

There's my proof.

And of course all this could have been avoided if BitBet used the actual product pages as their source of information. Or the FAQ that said that the company will not advertise power consumption at this point.

But even if you played by their "rules" and looked at forum posts, the "Yes" bet should still have won as I've pointed out many times before.

Still waiting for an update from BitBEt.

To a significant fraction thereof. This means that one person claiming to have received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet (such as the Luke-jr fraud has done with the betsofbitco.in scam "bet" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165500.0)). This also means that one person claiming to have not received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet the other way.

Ideally this could be further clarified. Practically, it cannot be further clarified. This is the unfortunate limitation of Bitcoin per se (more of the same here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=205619.msg2150287#msg2150287)). We will have (absolutely all of us, whether we want to or not, whether we think it's fair or not, whether anything else) to learn to live with it.


All of them. This should not logically be a problem, seeing how the devices are presumed to be mass produced rather than carved by hand somewhere. I agree that for the time it took so far they might as well been hand carved, but this unfortunately is simply not a possibility that was considered or even reasonable at the time the bet was made. Consequently, it's baked in.


This was already explained multiple other places, but:

A. It is there because this is the retarded manner in which BFL (the producer itself!) phrased their own offering. In the choice between A.1. "phrase the bet differently from the producer, and be accused of loading the bet" and A.2. "phrase the bet exactly the same as the producer, and then face the hordes holding you to higher standards than the producer seeing how everyone knows BFL is a scam and everyone knows MP upholds his obligations to the word and letter" A.2. prevailed. This is because MP personally and his venture in this case are shining beacons of ideal perfection, as compared to everything else in Bitcoin, such as for instance (in this case) BFL.

B. It is interpreted in favor of BFL, which is to say that hash of no less than 90% and power consumption of no more than 110% of the spec. It won't decide against delivery if the hashing delivered is MORE than promised, or if the power usage is LESS than promised. It will decide against delivery if either hashing delivered is more than 10% under advertised values, or if power consumption is more than 10% over advertised values. The "or"s in the foregoing are plain (as opposed to exclusive), and I am getting slightly worried at noticing I feel compelled to specify that.


Kindly see post #10 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192122.msg1990571#msg1990571) in this thread.


It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

To remind everyone: This bet followed the statements that BFL itself made, back when it was lying to all of you. You don't like the lies you've swallowed, talk to the cook.

Please link to the advertisement as well as state these numbers here + on the bet. There are several advertisements out there that are at least partly conflicting which leads to confusion as you can clearly see. Time to clear this up.

https://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png

4.5 GH / 4.5 W
60 GH / 60 W
1.5 TH / 1.5 kW.

Wow, that is pretty damn clear. 

As is the date of 09-30-2012. Also, that vital information has still not been made available at the only place that matters - the actual bet itself. MPOE-PR is also contradicting themselves by claiming:


Face it, they're a bunch of scammers who are full of shit.


Yet deciding BFL bets on the contents of a webpage from 09-30-2012 is perfectly fine.

Let me just sum up what you posted:


You keep saying the spec changed before 30th March. I keep saying prove it.

There seems to be a misconception among some people that specifications are the same as performance...they are not.  If you want to get technical about it, even the circuit boards are specifications, where performance is the end result of the specifications.  The people i asked were well aware of all information, they just know that i asked about "Advertised Performance".  It's kind of like the people talking about stacking GPUs in a box.  A GPU is not an ASIC, and arguments like that from bitbet representatives only confirm what most people reading this thread have figured out.

Wait, what?

For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.

If you think i'm calling out people i work with on a bitcoin forum then your grasp on reality must be a struggle.  A more productive response would be some sort of rebuttal to my argument.

Here's a rebuttal: Anon asswipe (that's you) makes random appeal to authority (that'd be your anon expert friends). He then fails to name the authority, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination. He then proceeds to claim "the OP's grasp on reality must be a struggle", because that's the problem with people showing internet idiots that they're internet idiots: teh grasp on reality, man.

Next step, complain that I ad-hominem. Because after failing at making an argument, and failing at making a broken argument and failing at the entire "I win by losing" thing that's the one avenue left.

Fucking retards seriously, how can you go on living? It's beyond the credible.

Someone press this idiot on why they refuse to add the essential information about what constitutes "advertised performance" to the actual bet if they're not a bunch of scamming cunts.

My sources are irrelevant.  What is relevant is that nobody has addressed my points with any valid counter arguments, or god forbid a link and not just a wall of text with no factual statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt)

Being anon online doesn't mean anything.  For all i know every person arguing in this thread is the same guy.

Your point(s) all seemed to be that you and your friends had some opinion on what should or should not constitute "performance", and that your opinion was that power consumption didn't count.

Well here is my opinion:

Performance describes the manner in which something functions. Those attributes that are particular to its operation, how it 'performs'.

Specifications describe what something is. Its physical attributes, its form.

Now you said...


Lets break that down:

You contrast performance and specification as being two distinct things. This statement is important because it sets the mood. You will use this idea later to affirm the disjunct.

You ask your friends to categorise "power requirements" as performance or specification. However "requirements" are something that might form part of an objects design, so naturally it would seem fit that requirements are considered part of a device's specification. Requirements exist independently of an object ever operating.

When phrasing their response, you play a clever trick and switch the term "power requirements" for "power consumption", you say your friends tell you "power consumption" is not an aspect of performance.

Power consumption is something that happens when a device is functioning. Consumption happens (more than likely in line with the specified power requirements) when the device 'performing'. It is an aspect of 'performance', which will likely be in line with the specified "power requirements".

You try to redefine this aspect of performance as being something else. However in creating this other "not-performance" category, you actually use the word performance to describe it!

You then make the statement "It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance".

This is where you attempt to close the deal.

You attempt to assert that "power consumption" is not performance, and use your original premise of categorising things as "performance or specification" to assert that it must then be part of the device's specification.

"performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical.

It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars".

Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency. I pointed that out several pages ago. The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance. Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum (http://forums.anandtech.com/) and they will tell you the exact same thing. Performance is about speed, Performance per Watt is about efficiency.

It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance, otherwise we would simply call it performance and not performance per watt.

Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it.

How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?

Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple.

This thread would benefit from more colors. Here are some colors for it:

http://polimedia.us/dtng/c/src/136886808953.jpg

Heres the first hit on google


efficiency ⊆ performance
speed ⊆ performance
performance per watt ⊆ performance

performance ⊇ any aspect of performance

You appear to be trying to assert that: "because a different word was used to describe one aspect of performance, it is not performance"

You cannot redefine what words actually mean.

Its got nothing to do with finance, or technology, and everything to do with just knowing what words mean.

You have just re-asserted what branksy said, despite that fact that his whole argument was fallacious, by using more fallacious statements.

"The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance." Ad hominem.

"Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing." Appeal to common sense.

"It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance." Divine fallacy

"Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it." Appeal to motive.

"How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum.

Besides, that is another affirmation of the disjunct. You allege that [everyone on anandtech] says performance per watt is efficiency, therefore it is not performance. The dictionary clearly states that efficieny is in fact a measure of performance.

That leaves these two essentially identical statements:

"Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency."
"Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple."

Again, with the presenting opinion as fact: Special Pleading, Mind Projection fallacy.

You have said nothing that warrants consideration. You present no evidence, just repeat conjecture.

MPOE posted a link to advertised performance, they are the conditions of the bet, that fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

Let's ignore the fact then that performance is not performance per watt, despite what some financial weasels think, and focus on the fact that "MPOE posted a link to advertised performance". The only place that such a link would have any purpose whatsoever, is in the actual bet itself and it isn't there, despite repeated requests to have it added. It makes no sense at all to post the link on this forum where nobody using the BitBet site can see it.

You can defend the elitist, racist, scummy, piece of shit scammers as much as you want, after all, they've paid you to do so by deciding that May bet in your favour. Their actions speak louder than their and your words, and their action are those of a scammer.

For the record, a boatload of neckbeards doesn't pay for one single financier. This because tech people actually are humanly inferior to money people. They're less of a person.

Let's break this apart a bit shall we?

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

• can be established to true/false
• no percentage or quantity defined, thus any quantity will result in true
• turned out to be: true

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "advertised" can be interpreted in many ways ie. what mediums are considered to be official advertisement
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than needed, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "performance" can be interpreted in many ways ie. Performance per Joule (GH/J), Gigahashes per secons (GH/s)
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than thought before, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

The bet should not have been allowed in the first place as per BitBets FAQ/EULA. After it was accepted, when it became clear that bettors couldn't agree what advertised performance was (see the comments about in the bet, people even here can't agree) the bet should have been cancelled.

Now if BitBet doesn't stick to their own policies and still wants to resolve the bet, "Yes" is a clear winner because it is supported by more sources and the only "No" source was negated when 28-03-2013 announcement stated that the devices will consume more power than previously advertised.

Let me know if you still think that the 28-03-2013 announcement doesn't say that the first products will perform worse in terms of GH/J and I will help you out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_(technical_standard)
"A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, design, product, or service."

A spec is a set of requirements for achieving performance.  It could be the amount of helium in the air required to do an experiment, consuming that helium like miners consume power.


If you'll notice my link to wikipedia earlier in a previous post, it should clear this up for you, assuming you understand hardware.


GH/s stands for GH/s...not GH/w/s.  I'll concede that standard performance measurements in the mining community haven't been uniquely defined.  But that only supports the fact that we need to use the terms that the people who build hardware use, which is what i'm doing and you're not.

I agree that would be specification of the experiment, when the experiment is underway, the rate at which the helium is used would constitute a part of that experiments performance though.


The wikipedia link describes performance per watt. Merely affirming that it is a performance metric.



Sorry typo. Rather an unfortunate one, but still a typo.


No I am not defining anything, I am saying performance per watt is just a facet of performance.

Unless you have some evidence that it isn't we are done.

And you still try to push your agenda with misrepresentation, and conflation of your opinion with facts.


People have opinions on all sorts of things. Just because people don't agree with something it does not make that thing any less sure.


The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power.


Thats very kind, but my reading comprehension is adequate for this very simple exercise.

The only misrepresentation going on is by BitBet. They clearly think that performance = performance per watt, they also clearly know that a lot of people think that performance per watt is not performance, yet they do nothing whatsoever to clarify the vague phrase "advertised performance" when they could quite easily specify exactly what that performance is on the bet.

The fact that they refuse to do so, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are deliberately misleading their users in order to rip them off. All because they have a grudge against BFL.

Oh hey, this thread still going? And the people who fucked up are still sore in the butt? And nothing else is coming out of it?

Who could have imagined it!

Here's a five cent clue, kids: Stay in school. Trolling for BFL doesn't pay.

I can't even believe people are trying to argue that this bet should have gone the other way.

Talk about delusional, jeez.

So you insist on having GH/J as part of the specs / performance, yet you claim that decreased GH/J doesn't change the specs / performance metrics. Good job.

By that logic the rate of decay of all parts of the machinery are included in performance.  Meaning that cheap parts that can produce the same output as more expensive parts would have lower performance because they will degrade quicker.  You could also say that a fans ability to not be clogged would be performance, even though that's not addressed.


It is in fact a performance metric, but the bet was not made on that specific metric.  We could expand on this logic to say that the whole bet depends on a single unused diode.


I didn't mean to accuse you of defining it, i just wanted to point out that it's undefined right now.


I think i've pretty much stated my case.  At this point i'm just replying to replies :)

I didn't say that, but it doesn't surprise me that you would try to claim that I did.

I said "The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power."

Once again, you are confusing reality with your imaginary fantasy world.

So the first products that BFL delivered consumed more power, as stated by BFL, but BitBet resolved the bet to "No
 because of increased power consumption? GG

I have proved many times that BitBet allowed a BadBet, resolved a BadBet and used cherry-picked sources for the resolution - yet some internet philosophers keep ignoring that and talk about dead cats in boxes or boxes of GPUs. It is becoming clear that BitBet has no interest in fixing their mistakes let alone admitting them - instead they keep calling their customers kids and restards, ignoring the raised issues.

Running a scammy business on internet must be much easier than face to face, but not all internet users are sheeple you can fleece and ignore/try to get away with it. I will now resume contacting the Romanian authorities to get your mailing address, asking them if you're licensed to run online gambling service and whether you're licensed to run an online stocks/options/futures exchange. I will also do my best to warn others about your your scammy, unlicensed business.

Not only did BitBet rip off its users, it also ripped off the creator of the bet as seen here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192905.msg2062075#msg2062075).

Really good juice could be an explanation, sure. I kinda doubt it tho.

No, the bet was based on the specification at the time the bet was made. At the point they shipped those 'first' products they hadn't changed spec, they were just pushing something out of the door to keep people happy. They were still working to get the rest of their stuff down to spec.

You really are struggling with this aren't you.

The result of taking nitpicking lawyering seriously is 8000 pages of legislation nobody reads, introduced blank into Congress (and voted as such).

If you think the BitBet model such as it is is worse than that - fine. As far as can be discerned it's only worse to the people who want to con others by relying on ridiculous interpretations that magically make their one in a hundred crapshot worth a lot.