|
The open market is your price discovery tool. We don't need organized price controls in place. Most of us want to get away from that model and try something new.
Dalkore
|
|
|
|
Won the bitbet bet for those who bet on that, sorry for those who bet on bestofbitcoin  Am I reading this correctly? Two different sites with the same bet, but one awards and the other declares a draw? The bitbet one was clearly won by those betting against BFL. It only allowed +/- 10% of hashrate, which BFL has failed to meet so far. Although... I'd have expected a competent judge to contact me and ask my opinion on whether the device is capable of the 27 Gh/s required, in case my current results were the result of software issues. But it's immaterial, since as best as I can tell so far, I'm getting the most performance out of it that it can handle. Thank you Luke-Jr. I am surprised that you did not get contacted. |
|
|
|
huh ?! I thought Dalkore is interested in both - deal did not happen ?
We are in discussion. The unit is still available. Contact him soon. |
|
|
|
Sold for 18.000. Just for your information.  Didn't you have a higher offer? You did not return my message with the clarifications? |
|
|
|
|
I personally asked BoB to reconsider this decision. I think this will haunt them for a long time. Draw is not the answer. A free bet is not a bet.
Is it true that a betting fee was charged on this, or is that just a rumor? I didn't not take place so I don't know.
D
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the deal, I am taking applications for people who want to build some start-up projects and be paid in BTC. I need someone who is quick and can get to minimum viable features quickly to test ideas to see what sticks. You will hold me to account for getting project scope, feature list and basic UI input. Also I beta test and do decent bug reports.
Technologies we will be dealing (your preferences will be strongly considered): PHP, Python, MySQL (NoSQL, etc), CSS, Implementation of Open Source projects and experience on how to build user account systems. These projects will primarily be BTC based projects with some extension into traditional finance.
Please post below and I will PM with where to send your resume so I can create a profile. Once we get enough candidates then we will start contact directly to get work samples and discuss what we have in mind for placement. I am direct and easy to work with and will set clear goals before work starts so we can measure progress. I am really into creating a framework we can create multiple projects with so implementation time is lower.
Serious inquires only.
Sincerely,
Dalkore
|
|
|
|
|
If any developers are interesting in creating a competing prediction market please PM. I have found a framework. My system will take the title and the primary statement, then the content and secondary conditions (as needed)
D
|
|
|
|
So last year a few companies came up with plans for ASIC miners, but didn't have the money to develope them, so they asked you guys to fund them in the form of pre orders. Some months later, right about the time they were supposed to deliver the ASIC hardware to you, 3 new miners coincidentally came out of nowhere and took over 60% of the market. Does that about sum it up?
Mind you, I'm taking the "3 new miners take 60% of the market" part off a news story that I saw, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Please link your source if you are going to ask about it. Also, this question should be in "Mining Speculation". |
|
|
|
BTW, I started out that semi-long post I made a few minutes ago with the intention of presenting arguments for both sides.
I was surprised that I couldn't come up with any good arguments for the post-April betters... but it is what it is. Try reading the title of the bet and see if you may figure any "intent" of what people might be actually betting on. When I do that, it talks about a product "shipping". The title seems to suggest an intent of referring to the product being with customers - that's usually what "shipping" refers to. If the title were on its own, I would agree completely with the post-April position. However, the details specifically elaborate on the definition of the bet, and that definition seems to have been met. I would tend to agree with this defintion: Shipping - The process of transporting an item, usually through the mail. Shipping is a very basic, common way of getting an item from one place to another, or from one person to another. Also, you are not with your unit. Also, you are not a customer, you are clearly a independent contractor or consultant, even if you ordered a unit. Being that the bet laid out conditions about non-BFL employees, you can make the argument that you would not count either. Now if you were at home and it arrived, that would be another story, but you were at their facility and left the unit there. |
|
|
|
BTW, I started out that semi-long post I made a few minutes ago with the intention of presenting arguments for both sides.
I was surprised that I couldn't come up with any good arguments for the post-April betters... but it is what it is.
Try reading the title of the bet and see if you may figure any "intent" of what people might be actually betting on. When I do that, it talks about a product "shipping". |
|
|
|
|
PM me with the buy it now and ship it price.
|
|
|
|
|
Contact me directly. I am willing to serious consider this offer.
|
|
|
|
Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down: • Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.
" at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met" with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met" shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]? " including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met" This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
" device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" - Condition MetToo much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is: True -- BFL has not shipped before April 1st, 2013 - Key phase, before you can evaluate this analysis, you have to agree with the posters assumption that the title is not important in determining the bet. This title reads very specifically so either you the title should matter or not. It does set a precedent. I think misleading titles should be a factor if people think BFL did met the outcome requirement to affirm the bet. |
|
|
|
1) The fact that BFL seems to care more about winning a bet than delivering a solid product to customers speaks volumes.
2) The way they tried to win this bet speaks volumes about the dishonest way they conduct their business. It is borderline scammy.
I'm sorry, but as far as BFL customers are concerned this is a FAIL on two counts. Regardless if BFL wins this silly bet or not. Get a clue folks and set your priorities straight.
I stated this opinion as well. People will do what people will do. |
|
|
|
Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013 - This is the title. It is quite specific. If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths. Even comparisons from the representative of the company (BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled. By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about. What more do you really need? Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong. I am sorry to say it but it is true.
Am I wrong on this?
You are not wrong, and I understand what you're saying..but .. Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording?
No. In contracts or other formal agreements the content takes precedence over the intent. One example I usually think about when it comes to something like this is Taxes. The government's intent is for you to pay your share and they write this massive tax code to cover just about everything they can think of. But thanks to their wording, there are loopholes that allow for people to keep their money if they put it in the right places. Something well written thoroughly transfers intent into technical wording, which the author of this bet clearly did not do properly. As a result, we have to debate about something that should be pretty straightforward  Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that?
I would imagine so. But I also imagine there are people who looked through the details of the bet and agreed to it based on that instead. Anyway, it should all be taken into context..title and content. EDIT: I never bet on this, so I have nothing to gain or lose here. I see what your saying but your example is of a flawed system ( taxes). Using that to back up a bet that clearly is using technical language to misinform the intent, isn't that in it self an admission that I am correct? You can't have it both ways if you want to debate my comments. I believe most people would actually side that intent matter ( good faith) and technical details are usually used to take advantage over another person or group. I would hope you are on the side of intent when it can be measure and not details. I operate on intent first and then make sure that matches my legal language of contracts I offer for signature. |
|
|
|
Disclosure: I do not have any stake in the outcome of the "BFL Ships ASIC before April 1st" bet.
With that said, from what I have read and the details about the unit not being in the possession of Luke-Jr, it being on the test bench and Luke not being with the unit. Also mentioning that BFL likely violated their own 1/3 shipping plan, shows that this was more of a STUNTto win a bet and not a real shipment.
Verdict: Bet is lost
Sidenote: It is promising to finally see this type of progress from BFL and we should not berate them so harshly when they really gave people information they have been craving. I know they are late and have done many objectionable tactics, but you can't burn them on the stake for this one. It is good to see that information released.
I think the general consensus is that they lost the bet, but people are fighting over what is the reason why the lost the bet. For those that have not actually read the text of the bet: "For this statement to be false, both of the two following conditions must be met: • Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee. • The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate." it's true that none of those conditions mention anything about shipping, but the "Before April 1" line stands out. In the absence of a time zone specification, I'd go with UTC. It's up to the BoB to figure out what the timezone is and then sift through the remaining points. - This is the title. It is quite specific. If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths. Even comparisons from the representative of the company ( BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled. By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about. What more do you really need? Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong. I am sorry to say it but it is true. Am I wrong on this? Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording? Please think about the previous statement before just responding. Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that? I can't really see how that was not the case. This is my argument.
Disclosure: I did not bet on this claim |
|
|
|
A title doesn't govern a contract, the content does. I could change my contract titles to "Two Monkeys Butt-fucking" and it wouldn't change the fact that I wrote a Notes contract binding me to my investors.
Korbman - Correct. If you read my comments back a couple pages, there is no way to really interpret the facts to fit the content. BFL did not ship before April 1st, 2013. With that said, the progress is looking good and I am happy for their very very very patient customers. Ah, skimmed over the majority of pages since I hadn't read it in over 24 hours. Are you referring to Page 8? Yes and I believe one more later comment. |
|
|
|
Isn't one of the issues that the terms of this specific bet doesn't say anything about shipping or shipped??
The actual title makes it pretty clear: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013
A title doesn't govern a contract, the content does. I could change my contract titles to "Two Monkeys Butt-fucking" and it wouldn't change the fact that I wrote a Notes contract binding me to my investors. - Correct. If you read my comments back a couple pages, there is no way to really interpret the facts to fit the content. BFL did not ship before April 1st, 2013. With that said, the progress is looking good and I am happy for their very very very patient customers. |
|
|
|
Well one of their employees got the hardware but HIS it uses more juice than what they said it would.
and they've shown decent amount of proof to not be a scam, not to mention they've sold earlier mining hardware.
The hardware is still in the lab and the developer left the country. Not a scam but not shipping either. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
