My original post was meant to say that aren't there other ASICs already designed by someone else that can do these same types of computations.

so... does anybody know how much those 10,000 chips will cost?

To me it would have been a better approach for someone like BFL and Avalon to work together on making the CHIP and then create products around that chip.

At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side.  By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine.

Sure, I made mistakes when I made the bet (which BoB had an opportunity to correct when they approved the bet), but I still feel like "True" is pretty clearly the correct outcome, based on multiple points.  Some of those being:

• BFL shipped nothing.  The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product.  Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1]

• The pictures were posted after midnight.  No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time).  Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April.

• The pictures were not credible.  They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL.  The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible.

• The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single.  There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made.  The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet.

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

My position appears to be overwhelmingly supported by public opinion on the forums. [4]  Opinion Coinjedi solicited I might add.

Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?






[1]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1726858#msg1726858

[2]: http://betsofbitco.in/help, in "What is the difference between deadline and event date?": "All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time."

[3]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1729969#msg1729969

[4]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.0

BFL had a previousy bad record about delivery of FPGAs.
Did you really believed that with  ASICs (much harder ASICs) would be any better?

They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.

All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time.

It's not a secret that they've changed the heatsinks which they were originally going to use for their ASICs - Josh posted about it the other day.

In this case, the title of the bet and the content of the bet resolve to different outcomes. No instructions, knowable to participants at the time of placing their bets, have been provided regarding what should be done in this case.

When placing bets for money rather than mere fun, I would like people to be especially careful about the conditions they formulate. There is a fine but very real difference between "yes", "no" and "syntax error".

...

This leaves room for creative interpretation, which in my opinion, should disqualify the bet itself. I think "draw" is a reasonable decision, just like "when in doubt, do no harm" is a reasonable principle.

The Title and poll are at odds. (True/False) is an unclear choice.

Did Bets of Bitcoin correctly decide = FALSE

"BFL will not ship ASIC before April"? = TRUE


and the OP can switch these around to set the final result the way he wants by editing the post.

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.

So you never answered.

Are you being compensated by BFL in any way for your development efforts?

I wasn't even betting on this one.
But it was obvious on a lot of points, that BFL had failed to do it.

They said they include the title in the agreement


# Point 1

According to the Bet site information, the bet is directing you to the annoucment BFL made linking you to:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html


I'm fully aware that, their has been changes to what they will say each of these will do. Changing them respectively to 4.5 / 60 / 1500.
Also added a "Little SC Single", which is 30Gh/s. I'm sure there was further tweaks, as I did not follow it that closely.
This was done after the bet was issued apparently, so it is questionable to allow the change in hashrate, to add a device, can't really be taken into account. The original bet was talking about the original 3, not this added 4th one.


#Point 2

BFL Customer or Employee - He appears to be somewhere in the middle. He clearly got 1st dibs on it, for "work" he did, so he is certainly not a normal customer, but he is not an on the books employee.

The pictures were provided by Josh (BFL Employee), showing a prototype, hashing just a few hours and posted just after the deadline. The "device" was still at BFL labs (ie. Not shipped), Luke appears to operate the computer remotely.


#Point 3

The device does hash, but the 75% requirement being met doesn't matter as it doesn't meet it or doesn't apply. It hashes at about 24-25Gh/s, Since either it's a SC single (75% of 40Gh/s is 30Gh/s) and it doesn't meet the requirement or it's a Little SC single and it doesn't count as one of the original 3.


Summary

It was ruled as a draw by BoB, even though it clearly was not. They failed at every point. So It was "True", 'BFL would not ship'.

Further more, it was clearly stated no commission would be taken, but I've already seen reports that people are indeed being hit with one.
BoB made a bad decision too quickly, on one of the hottest discussions in bitcoin for a long time now (which also had a bet on) and instead of investigating properly, just pulled out the Draw card instead. It was so hotly debated, not because it being close true/false situation, but because BFL and the BFL supporters were actually trying to steal a win at the last minute. It appears they succeeded in some small way, and BoB helped them.
If the reports of commissions actually still being taken are true, BoB has managed to take a cut from both sides in this rather large bet.

Those directly associated with BoB deserve a scammer tag.

You missed to touch on the part where betsofbitco.in turned out to be a crappy bet website, now being abandoned by a greater part of the bitcointalk community.

Is BitBet.us the next alternative?

This was a pretty interesting bet at the end.  Defiantly got my winnings worth.