|
lol
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00099
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00098
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00097
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00096
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00095
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00094
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00093
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00092
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00091
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0009
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00089
18:07:35 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00088
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00087
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00086
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00085
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00084
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00083
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00082
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00081
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0008
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00079
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00078
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00077
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00076
18:07:34 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00075
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00074
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00073
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00072
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00071
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0007
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00069
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00068
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00067
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00066
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00065
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00064
18:07:33 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00063
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00062
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00061
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0006
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00059
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00058
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00057
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00056
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00055
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00054
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00053
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00052
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00051
18:07:32 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0005
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00049
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00048
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00047
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00046
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00045
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00044
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00043
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00042
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00041
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0004
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00039
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00038
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00037
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00036
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00035
18:07:31 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00034
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00033
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00032
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00031
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0003
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00029
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00028
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00027
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00026
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00025
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00024
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00023
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00022
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00021
18:07:30 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0002
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00019
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00018
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00017
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00016
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00015
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00014
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00013
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00012
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00011
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.0001
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00009
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00008
18:07:29 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00007
18:07:28 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00006
18:07:28 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00005
18:07:28 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00004
18:07:28 > Rem ask 0.01 @ 111.00003
|
|
|
|
|
7:56:29 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00095
17:56:28 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00094
17:56:28 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00093
17:56:28 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00092
17:56:28 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00091
17:56:27 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0009
17:56:27 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00089
17:56:27 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00088
17:56:26 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00087
17:56:26 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00086
17:56:26 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00085
17:56:26 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00084
17:56:25 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00083
17:56:25 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00082
17:56:25 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00081
17:56:25 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0008
17:56:24 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00079
17:56:24 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00078
17:56:23 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00077
17:56:23 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00076
17:56:23 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00075
17:56:23 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00074
17:56:22 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00073
17:56:22 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00072
17:56:22 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00071
17:56:22 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0007
17:56:22 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00069
17:56:21 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00068
17:56:20 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00067
17:56:20 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00066
17:56:20 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00065
17:56:19 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00064
17:56:19 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00063
17:56:18 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00062
17:56:17 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00061
17:56:17 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0006
17:56:17 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00059
17:56:16 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00058
17:56:15 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00057
17:56:14 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00056
17:56:13 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00055
17:56:12 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00054
17:56:11 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00053
17:56:11 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00052
17:56:10 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00051
17:56:09 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0005
17:56:08 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00049
17:56:08 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00048
17:56:07 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00047
17:56:07 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00046
17:56:06 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00045
17:56:06 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00044
17:56:05 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00043
17:56:05 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00042
17:56:05 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00041
17:56:04 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0004
17:56:03 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00039
17:56:03 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00038
17:56:03 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00037
17:56:02 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00036
17:56:02 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00035
17:56:01 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00034
17:56:01 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00033
17:56:00 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00032
17:56:00 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00031
17:55:59 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0003
17:55:59 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00029
17:55:58 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00028
17:55:58 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00027
17:55:57 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00026
17:55:57 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00025
17:55:56 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00024
17:55:55 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00023
17:55:55 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00022
17:55:54 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00021
17:55:54 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0002
17:55:53 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00019
17:55:52 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00018
17:55:52 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00017
17:55:51 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00016
17:55:51 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00015
17:55:51 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00014
17:55:51 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00013
17:55:51 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00012
17:55:50 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00011
17:55:49 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.0001
17:55:49 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00009
17:55:48 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00008
17:55:48 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00007
17:55:47 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00006
17:55:47 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00005
17:55:47 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00004
17:55:47 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00003
17:55:47 > Add ask 0.01 @ 111.00002
|
|
|
|
Just gonna throw my two cents into the ring here:
I know a bet was submitted around that time that was rejected that didn't include the power requirement clause. Now why would that bet be rejected? Seems to me that it would be because our good friends at MPOE wanted to scam more people out of money...
As a side note, the 5 GH/s miner has always been listed at the power requirement and performs within the advertised specs. If the bet was made after the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then BFL delivered as advertised. If the bet was made prior to the announcement of the 5 GH/s miner, then therein lies the confusion. I don't know much about this bet, as I don't keep up with the betting sites, but I'm just giving food for thought.
Hate to say I told you so, but this type of resolution is exactly thing kind of thing I'd expect from MPEX heh.
Can I have an opinion too? If you allow a bet that does not nail down what is being delivered, then the bit can quite easily be rigged by BFL sending out a shoebox the day before. The bet was made 30th March. The revised jalapeņo spec was put out in April. At that point you could argue the spec had 'officially changed' should you want to. |
|
|
|
- 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. The video shows power consumption, I agree. Where in the video does it state that this is the new spec? The forum thread discusses power consumption, I aree. Where in the thread does it state this is the new spec? Comprehension is critical. You fail it. |
|
|
|
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. Don't misrepresent what i say it discredits your argument. The words I say are the words I meant, your interpretation, and then rephrasing of what I say are your words, and are most definitely not what I meant. As I said about riker, I say about you, you are arguing semantics. You say "BitBet misled it's users". I say when the bet was created there was no confusion about the spec. You say "By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications" they had not. So when you claim that I know that, that is patently false. You then go on to reiterate this falsehood, like you have some how proven it. You have not. Specs were announced, at no point prior to the creation of the bet (30th march) had there been any indication that BFL were changing the spec of the products they were shipping. BFL had made announcements that the prototype was using more power, and they had also stated that they were working to reduce this power. That does not equate to "We have changed the spec". You are failing at basic reading comprehension. That is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact as evidenced by the fact that you read words and then claim those words mean something they do not. As you fail at reading comprehension, then you are ill qualified to have any sort of credible opinion on this subject. Unless of course you do comprehend the meaning of words, but are attempting to intentionally misrepresent them, merely to further your own argument. Which is it? |
|
|
|
I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.
BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.
No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread. I haven't seen a single good answer in this thread that would answer the above questions, feel free to point me to one. When I'm less busy, I will draft a timetable of events / posts and to make it more clear what happened. 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 jalapeņo. 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. |
|
|
|
Pretty cool of you stepping up like that. Props.
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  |
|
|
|
YOU RANG?  |
|
|
|
Including all the germans bashing themselves into a hypnotic trance of guilt submission. That's the worst.
Agreed. |
|
|
|
No they wont switch off. You dont spent x amount on a rig and Imagen the price of bitcoin rises to the stratosphere and then just turn it off because it t falls temporary below operating cost. the last staple price was $13 everyone was happy then. In the long run the price will settle somewhere around cost of production + cost of distribution + cost of retail + cost of marketing everything else is just speculation. Yes i know supply and demand. Well, there is unlimited supply of crypto currencies the limited number of bitcoins are as with meaningless. I hear it is so hard to get traction. In the long run traction is not a factor. Not every snowball gets enough traction to start an avalanche, but look at the devastation it leaves behind if it gets going.
Be wise only spent what i easy can afford.
Have to go plane to catch.
Agreed. In the first instance I would stop selling and accumulate. even if its a 50/50 split supply will be reduced, price gotta go up. I don't think either follows the other, i think its a much more complex feedback loop. With further chaos introduced by speculators. |
|
|
|
I wasn't clear it seems. I need buy/sell signals as long as Mtgox has no fees.
I am all usd at the moment.
When price is low, buy. When price is higher than you bought, sell. BOOM |
|
|
|
Given what you have posted so far, that was all that was needed.
(points and laughs even harder)  I hereby nominate this couple of bitcoin enthusiasts as official mascots of bitcointalk.org. That, and I thank them for cheering me up in these confusing, if not difficult, times.  |
|
|
|
so if youre a chicken with no balls with bifocals like the bottom of coca cola bottles than a family portrait looks like this?  Is that home?  |
|
|
|
Bull trap / Return to normal |
|
|
|
Can you see all my other wallets with those things!! LOLZ  Why yes. Yes, I can.  |
|
|
|
|
Given what you have posted so far, that was all that was needed.
|
|
|
|
|
You are the guy who is so sure he has all the answers. Coupled with the most eloquent delivery and finest rebuttal of all naysayers that I have ever seen. Why its a wonder I even continue posting when you have so deftly cut me with your perilous wit.
Or maybe you are fucking barking mad. you dunce.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
