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? |
|
|
|
I see your #14 and raise you a #22. 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).
Then, any bet to do with breaking the law (specifically, murder, but also arson, theft, general destruction and mayhem) is a BadBet and not allowed on BitBet. So, bets such as "President Obama will be shot on December the 19th between 18:30:00 and 19:00:00 UTC", "The Empire State building will burn to the ground sometime in June 2013", "A crowd of at least five hundred protestors will not throw tomatoes at Nicole Kidman during the Cannes" and so forth are all unacceptable.
Also, bets which are not really bets but moreover advertising, advocacy, rambling nonsense and such are unacceptable on BitBet.
|
|
|
|
|
Still no explanation, MPOE?
|
|
|
|
I've realised the mistake I made. It was using your scammy services. Rest assured I won't be doing that again.
Go invest in Pirate, it's better for you. Why don't you try addressing the issues that have been raised, scammer. |
|
|
|
- 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 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. 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 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. |
|
|
|
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..."
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. 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.
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. 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.
You've already pointed out that the specs had changed by the time the bet was made. |
|
|
|
Look at all these people swimming with sharks and then complaining when they're bitten.  "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! |
|
|
|
You two muppets apparently need to somehow learn that talking yourselves into a tizzy does not do anything of practical importance.
So: stahp! figure out what YOU did wrong, never do that again.
Also would help if you take the self-humiliatory step of making a detailed post delineating the mistakes you made, explaining just how stupid you are for not realizing sooner what mistakes you made, apologize for having made them and carry on with your lives with the benefit of being less stupid in the future.
I would perhaps be willing to help you with that. I won't be entertaining this sort of bullshit. Thanks & gl.
I've realised the mistake I made. It was using your scammy services. Rest assured I won't be doing that again. |
|
|
|
It's on the blog, dummy. Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost.
So you're the Mark Sanders muppet? Congrats, you're an interwebs celebrity nao. 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. PS. The claim isn't that you lost, the claim is that you're an idiot.
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. |
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg ( http://www.reddit.com/r/BetterBitcoinBureau/comments/1dj0tq/bitbetus/ ) BitBet administrator responds to another users email with: 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.
Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost. |
|
|
|
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)
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. |
|
|
|
So the May 1st bet was just resolved to "no" based on information from a forum post in 2012 about a product which was cancelled. Here is the "advertised performance" which was used to resolve the bet, https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.htmlBitForce Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s @ 4.5w
BitForce Single SC - 60 GH/s @ 60w
BitForce MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s @ 1,500w
Power figures are +/- 10% of those listed while we finish optimizing our power subsystem. The May 1st bet was created on 30-03-2013. At that time, the Jalapeno had already been cancelled and replaced by the BitForce 5 GH/s SC. So, here are the facts: - BitBet allowed a bad bet to made, against their own policy set forth in their FAQ.
- BitBet intentionally misled its users by conspiring in an IRC channel to decide to include power consumption in the bet, then never bothered to make that vital information available to its users.
- The owners chose to base their decision on the specs of a cancelled product posted to a forum in 2012 and 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.
It has been claimed that BitBet owners allegedly bet 20 BTC on a "no" result.
|
|
|
|
A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units. 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 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". |
|
|
|
Im heading this one off before I see KGambler crying about it on here: Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid. No scam, they failed to meet the power specs they quoted (big surprise, BFL lied again). No Bitbet did not scam - I suggest all users of these wagering sites review their english skills or stop using them. If the language is not clear - DO NOT BET. If you have to get creative when interpreting the bet, then you are setting yourself up to fail. Bitcoin Betting Sites - Please FFS employee gramar nazi's or something to pull every new submission over the hot coals first. Those "specs they quoted" were for a product that got cancelled before the bet was ever made. BitBet resolved the bet based on the "final specs" for the Jalapeno, not the specs for the 5GH/s SC. They used obsolete information from 2012, instead of the updated information from 2013, available at the time the bet was created. There's also the allegation that they BitBet bet 20 BTC on "no". Given the fact that they're allowing bad bets despite it being against their policy as stated in their FAQ, how can you claim they're not scamming people? Especially when they're conspiring on IRC channels and failing to inform their users of vital information which they're going to use to resolve their bets. These bets are a blatant scam and rather than recognising that, you're putting the blame on those who got scammed. |
|
|
|
A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units. 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 you admit that you based your decision on rumours instead of fact? |
|
|
|
A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units. Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012. Too bad Jalapeņos 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"? |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
Yeah, just ignore the fact that power specs were never mentioned in the bet. Right now you are choosing to ignore that power consumption is a factor of performance for an electrical device. Just ignore the fact that this bet was resolved on obsolete information posted to a forum in 2012. Linky ? 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. 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. So ? That makes you a fool for betting in favour of the bet then. Actually, I didn't bet on this. |
|
|
|
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. Of course he's "butthurt", he just got ripped off by a scammer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
