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.

An organizer of games of chance can be any company, legally registered in Romania and authorized to unfold the activity of games of chance in accordance with the provisions of the present resolution no.251/1999.

The competent authority to release the authorization so that a company can unfold the activity written in Cod CAEN as: 9271: games of chance, belongs to the Ministry of Economics and Finances, the Commission for the Authorization to Conduct Games of Chance.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great.

Since we're doing "I would likes", here's mine : I would like to fuck your wife (due to you being an idiot). If you don't have one (which'd be unfortunate but perhaps not unexplainable) please get married asap. I expect to receive this wife of yours at the following address : 1wilfulstupidityrules1337, and let me point out to you that by failing to inform me of the vital information of whether you're married or not and also failing to provide tits in time you're now to gtfo.

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!

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!

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

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

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.

Q: What is the power consumption of the Bitforce SC (ASIC based) units?
A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units.

Website : BitBet.us

Owner : Matic "kakobrekla" Kočevar and Mircea "mircea_popescu" Popescu

31. So did you do it all by yourself ?

Not really. While Mircea Popescu has been managing the project and putting up the capital since the very beginning..

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.