Sounds rough. In the UK you could take them to small claims (after amassing plenty of correspondence showing you tried to avoid it - this is often key to winning favour from the judge/magistrate) for the princely sum of £80... maybe its gone up now I dunno. Provided the contract doesn't say they can do that (does it?) and/or you have evidence of what the rep said. You wouldn't need legal representation, they aren't gonna waste their time hiring some hot shot lawyer - they are probably likely to settle if you start making serious noises about going to court. If you do go to court they probably wont even bother showing.

You can find plenty of examples of the legal system failing, but they are all anecodatal. On the whole it works for stuff like this. worth a shot if you want to save your credit rating.

The trend is your friend!

I'd also like to announce the introduction of "Capitulate before its too late" as phrase of the now!

what if your entry point is negative $65 

100x leverage, just what I needed! 

They didn't go bankrupt "because they tried to monopolise silver", they went bankrupt because COMEX changed the rules of the game.

You don't buy *all* the bitcoin, you would just buy enough of it.

You are the US govt. You have infinite money. You buy anything below market price, and put it back up for sale at some percentage higher. The market will trened higher, and you will gradually accumulate bitcoin all of which was bougth for less then the market price.

The more you own the more scarce a commodity it becomes and this is what will support the price. You do it throughout the inflationary period of bitcoin. At which point bitcoin has replaced dollar, you as the govt own most of it, all the while you have also been cornering the block chain by ramping up govt controlled cpu power. You then set your miners to ignore zero fee / low fee, thus effectively enforcing a minimum price for transactions that have any need to go through quickly. Now you are taxing the world. Welcome to The New New Order!

Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

And the price on april 17th...

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zig2-hourzczsg2013-04-17zeg2013-04-17ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv

now if you just ignore the spike to 266 10 days earlier, this is the best prediction i ever made

rGzQa8CdCfFs9UfBxJJUnht3MTHQxMHYCb

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.

I vote dave.

Of course a successful BTC business could list on NYSE given the chance. Far from showing weakness, I think it shows great strength. That BTC is so successful that it doesn't need to hide from dollar denominated markets. It's just a forex thing, the same way some US companies have FTSE listings.

The economy isn't binary "bitcoin or fiat", its a mix and it likely will be for a long, long time. The reality is, that there are a lot of very powerful dollar rich people who are going to make damn sure the dollar doesn't collapse. They might fail at that eventually, but don't underestimate how hard they will try, and to what lengths they will go. In the meantime BTC just needs to keep its own back yard in order and do what it does. There is no rush...

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.

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.

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.

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".

Let me just sum up what you posted:


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

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 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...

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.