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). 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. |
|
|
|
From BitBet's FAQ: 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). Now lets examine the bet: BFL will deliver ASIC devices before May 1st That can easily be resolved to true or false, so that okay. Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers before 1st of May 2013. 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. Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid. 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. |
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?
It was unchanged. 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. I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshot were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertise performance must be from an advertisement from that date on, not from before 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. There is proof though. https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1512-power-consumption-early-shipping-bfl-units-per-hash.htmlAs you can see, that was posted 03-29-2013. |
|
|
|
Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?
It was unchanged. Source? Google 'bfl specification release'. You can press 'im feelin lucky'. 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. |
|
|
|
Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?
It was unchanged. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?
It was unchanged. Source? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
|
if you are so offended, why not ask for a refund?
I've got a better idea. How about you pay the 1000 BTC for the bet you lost over blowing your power usage estimates. How exactly would that address Tehfiend's concerns. Oh that's right, it wouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
I saw a post on reddit which explained this very simply in the following manner.
Lets take a network hash rate of 1000 TH/s:
1000 Th/s / 5 GH/s = 200,000
Now lets take the current network hash rate of around 75 TH/s and divide that by 200,000:
75 TH/s / 200,000 = 375 MH/s
Mining with a 5 GH/s miner when the network hash is 1000 TH/s is equivalent to mining with 375 MH/s right now. That will get you about 0.02 BTC per day.
Now lets see how this applies to the other rigs:
1000 Th/s / 25 GH/s = 40,000
75 TH/s / 40,000 = 1.875 GH/s
0.09 BTC per day
1000 Th/s / 50 GH/s = 20,000
75 TH/s / 20,000 = 3.75 GH/s
0.19 BTC per day
Even with a network hash rate of 1000 TH/s and BTC priced at $140, it would only take around 100 days to make your money back.
|
|
|
|
"What does the text say?" It clearly says "apopheniabtc.com".  |
|
|
|
"Phycoin" rolls off the tongue better than "Physcoin". That just sounds like fizz coin.
And the more i say it out loud, the more i like it..... "Ere Dave, you gotta couple of Phys, mate?" or "Thank you sir, thats 2 Physcoin change. Have a nice day". Edit: How about 'Crypts' ? Crypts or cryptcoin. Cryptcoin seems to stutter in the mouth, so Crypts for me. To me, "Crypts" sounds like "crips", which sounds like someone with a speech impediment asking for "crisps". |
|
|
|
|
What happens if 2 people get the answer right at the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
I propose the name BitBobs, "bob" being the slang name for an English shilling which was equal to 12 pence.
|
|
|
|
The amount of money I have lost by the delayed withdrawals amounts to several thousand EUR already. I am sorry, but besides the withdrawal, I will demand compensation on the difference of Bitcoin price at the time I sold it (two weeks ago!) and the time you finally send the withdrawals. The prices when I sold the Bitconis where about 8 EUR/BTC (I made three trades: at 7.99990 EUR, 8.59999 EUR and 8.89900 EUR), and immediately requested a withdrawal, which was just after the 26-30 July that Intersango announced that withdrawals will not be processed. Now Bitcoins are traded at over 11 EUR per BTC. On that difference in price - if I sold these Bitcoins now - its several thousand EUR difference - I hope Intersango has funds to cover me these losses which are clearly and only their fault.
Well given that the price has fallen below what you sold at, will you be paying Intersango the exact same compensation you demanded from them? |
|
|
|
You keep stating that the MH/s was blah regularly - which of course you'd expect it to always be consistent.
However to determine if it might be accurate is to ether look at a long term shares/minute or look at the shares/minute you get regularly over time.
As that one shows there, it varies by 5% easily (but it can vary a lot more over short a period of time)
Like I said, I've been running with these settings since Catalyst 11.7 came out. It was that update which gave the increase. I already had 2 workers mining seperate pools at a total hashrate of ~315 MH/s and after that update my hashrate shot up. I've already determined that it's accurate, I don't need to do so again. That is my hashrate and it is due to the second worker. If you don't want to believe that, then that's your choice. If anyone wants a possible extra 50 MH/s though, all they have to do is test this themselves. You don't have to take my word for it. |
|
|
|
Shares/minute (submitted - not calculated)
I not sure what trying to say. If you're asking for my shares/minute, then the answer is in the screenshots. 77 / 15 = 5.1333... 81 / 15 = 5.4 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
