Gambling License Romania
The authorization/organization of the activity of gambling in Romania is governed by State monopoly.

The State can grant the right of setting up the activity of games of chance according to the law, on the basis of a license, for the organization of each type of games of chance. The games of chance are classified as follows:

• Games of chance whose winning conditions are dependent upon random elements, with the use of gambling machines which are operated manually, mechanically, electrically, electronically, video automatically or in other similar ways. In order to play and win these games, they require the player’s ability or dexterity, light hand and also the chance, the hazard (the type of Atlantic pusher, Niagara);
• Casino games of chance
• Bingo, Keno type of games of chance, which take place in special game rooms;
• Sports Bets, Lotteries and Raffles , along with television Bingo and Keno;
• Contest-Games, with any type of wins, organized through telephone lines or any other means of telecommunication.

All securities trading in Romania is carried out by brokerage companies called Financial Investment Services Companies (FISC) licensed by the NSC and established according to law 297/2004.

Limited Liability Companies are not permitted to:

 - Undertake banking or insurance activities or any other activity that might suggest an association with same, without a licence.
 - Undertake investment business other than the investment of the company's own assets without a licence.
 - Neither solicits funds from the public nor offer their shares or membership to the public without a licence.

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 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.

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.

Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers before 1st of May 2013. Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid.

Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices

to their customers

before 1st of May 2013

Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised

performance in order to be accepted as valid.

A full discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the Bitcoin design will have to wait for a future blog post, but we note here that Bitcoin is very often not anonymous in the ways users might believe or expect, because (for instance) the network doesn't actively conceal the IP addresses from which transactions were initiated; its expenditure of large amounts of computational resources may turn out to be unnecessary; and its monetary policy is controversial and arguably designed to incentivize adoption and holding of the currency, rather than maximizing valuable economic transactions. The fact that Bitcoin is subject to criticism should not be surprising; it would have been much more surprising if the first widely used cryptographic currency had been perfect, and very active research continues on ways of improving Bitcoin or creating new crypto-currencies with other properties.

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?

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.

28 March 2013 - Mini-Update

I had wanted to post a video tonight, but wasn't able to make that happen, so let me apologize for that in advance. As some of you may know from the chatbox, we have been working diligently to get these ASICs out the door. We've been tracking down a power issue these last few days and have it isolated to a few key systems. In the interest of time, we are planning on potentially scaling back units hashing speed as required to accommodate the extra power and shipping multiple units to those that want their units right now. If would would prefer to wait for a unit after we've made some changes to the systems that need a bit of tweaking, we will be happy to put your shipment on hold. However, if you'd rather have the units right now at an increased power usage, we will ship you as many units as required to get you to the hashrate your purchased, if we end up having to scale back any given class of unit to fit within the power envelope of the current board design.

We have the current design hashing, and as I said, I had hoped to have a video of a unit hashing here in KC, but I wasn't able to bring that all together tonight, but hopefully I can get it posted up tomorrow or by this weekend. I will update as soon as I have more news to share, with a video.

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. If you'd rather have your units shipped regardless of increased power usage, we will still guarantee your hashrate by shipping you however many units are required to achieve your purchased hashrate. There is no need to contact us right now if you are not concerned about the power usage and just want your units shipped ASAP.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.

Again, we apologize for the delay, but we are almost there.

At this point, most likely a scam. Not on my list yet, but still dubious.

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 :/

What bets are BadBets?

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. For instance, "God Exists" is unacceptable, because it can never be established as either true or false. "God will change Coke to Pepsi on August 19th, 2013" is also unacceptable, also because it can never be established as true or false (even if the change of Coke to Pepsi could allegedly be established).

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.

Restrictions on Trading

Limited Liability Companies are not permitted to:
- Undertake banking or insurance activities or any other activity that might suggest an association with same, without a licence.
- Undertake investment business other than the investment of the company's own assets without a licence.
- Neither solicits funds from the public nor offer their shares or membership to the public without a licence.