I don't think a Draw is out of line. If you carefully read the terms of the bet, it's in BFL's favor except for the time requirement (before April 1). I think the post was made before April 1 on the US West Coast, and after April 1 East Coast time. They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.
How was the post credible - the pictures were taking by Josh (and employee) and sent to Luke (an eployee) - hell for all we know it might be a FPGA rig or what not. How does it imply shipping? |
|
|
|
I would entertain offers between 4,000 and 5,000 btc for the first rig, and 3,500-4,500 for the second.
0.4 to 0.5$MM? gl sir. |
|
|
|
Our reasoning is already on the page, so I will not repeat it here. We do our best to judge by the user written descriptions of statements. Unfortunately sometimes the outcome is not as unambiguous as we want. I guess that is why lawyer-talk evolved to be so convoluted. This particular case does not meet the unambiguity criteria we set ourselves.
Everybody got their full bet back, including the original submission fee. We could choose to select one side and earn a significant commission, enough to buy a nice laptop these days, but we didn't.
I respect everybody who thinks that we didn't judge well enough, but scamming is a different matter. I hope at least some of the bettors understand and respect our decision when the dust settles.
So instead, how much equity did the winners of the bet lose? How much equity did we ever have? Luke or anyone from BFL could of made same pictures/bs post at any time. |
|
|
|
+1 scam on both coinjedi / betsofbitco.in and Luke_Jr
I had no stake in the bet.
betsofbitco.in admitted that the title of the listing is part of the bet. Getting a consultant who you pay expenses for, to post photos of a prototype that's still sitting on the test bench, obviously doesn't count as shipping a unit.
Any argument that betsofbitco.in didn't make a commission on this bet, and thus didn't earn anything from it, is bunk because this decision is obvisouly corrupt. Who knows how much the losing side (those who bet that BFL would have shipped by now) paid betsofbitco.in to settle in their favor?
It's also a freeroll for BFL that bet on it being shipped |
|
|
|
|
Id be willing to guess that BFL or affils bet on bets "that they will ship" to increase customer interest/convince that they will/self-disbelief.
I'd love to be able to see who bet they'd actaully ship (which they didnt)
Anyway, obvious scam tag.
|
|
|
|
|
rediculous this is a draw
IF we ignore the bold title (no, when I buy eggs, I expect eggs), then the post is FAR from credible.
BFL did not ship, how is this not a trivial resolution?
|
|
|
|
|
can we propose a scammer tag for coinjedi? His website clearly stated if they ship?
|
|
|
|
|
wtf a draw? are you serious?
|
|
|
|
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. The title clearly states, in bold, if it ships? Did I miss something? Why on earth did they even post this, even BFL dont regard it as shipping or a product. |
|
|
|
10 payments of 3.1 on top of weekly interest payments (0.310,0.279,0.248,0.217,0.186,0.155,0.124,0.093,0.062,0.031)
10 payments of 0.5 on top of weekly interest payments (0.05,0.045,0.04,0.035,0.03,0.025,0.02,0.015,0.01,0.005);
All closed, would appreciate if investors give me some feedback
Thank you for a flawless deposit scheme, AndyRossy has kept us informed every step of the way, Top guy! Thanks  |
|
|
|
Hello everyone,
As it is part of running a betting service, sometimes we have to make some decisions that will not please all of our users. This is certainly one of these cases. I agree that the bet description statements are barely satisfied but the bet is actually on "shipping" of a commercial product. To the best of our judgment the pictured device is still an internal development unit within the company premises, even if it is somehow "owned" by a non-employee. As far as I can see even BFL doesn't officially claim shipping. Under these circumstances we can not rule the statement as false. Our decision is currently not final and we will be listening your input for a few days before the final decision. Feel free to raise your opinion.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=164067.0imo bet is true. |
|
|
|
No product was shipped
Agreed. Post was after 31st March
Agreed. No proof of actual hashing - or can a pool testify
Disagree. If you look closely at the photo, you can make out the eligius address: http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1CdcYVP4T4hjHwt353pEnGHrigeDLvuvZLLooks like 2 singles "paired up" - screen even says, two devices
Disagree. In the photo you can see that only 1 board is powered. Was by an employee
Debatable. Either of these being true, makes the bet false.
Agreed?
Disagree. Any of the above being true makes the bet statement "Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013" true. Yes, I meant true. The post was after midnight, as was the hasing on the pool above, and imo it's an employee testing out the hardware on a dev bench at the BFL lab - i'd even question if Luke was there or took these pictures. |
|
|
|
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 does sound like they met these requirements. Wow, what a slimy way to win a bet. Good thing I made my wagers on bitbet. Always read the fine print!!
For what it's worth, I agree that the bet is won, the screenshot was posted, and the date on the screenshot is 2013-03-31 so it was March, it was in Luke's possession, it was mining and it's a little single within 75% parameters of 30Gh (it was hashing at average of 23.52 which is 78%. Luke-Jr received the rig by picking it up in person at the BFL premises (which BFL have stated is fine if arranged in advance) then leaving it there to be hosted. Nowhere in the bet were any other rules stated. I don't think this is a debate that will ever be concluded though because people will have diametrically opposed views based on their ideology, regardless of how betsofbitcoin resolve it, there will be a load of angry/unhappy people. Will No product was shipped Post was after 31st March No proof of actual hashing - or can a pool testify Looks like 2 singles "paired up" - screen even says, two devices Was by an employee Either of these being true, makes the bet false. Agreed? |
|
|
|
http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701For 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 does sound like they met these requirements. Wow, what a slimy way to win a bet. Good thing I made my wagers on bitbet. Always read the fine print!! Nope, it's a picture from their development - please look at the youtube, post was after APRIL FIRST |
|
|
|
"Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013"
Distinctly says ship.
Holy crap, can people not read a webpage? Look at the terms, not the title. The title is a hook for advertising. It's not binding in any way. The terms of the bet define the bet contract, not the title. It has two simple conditions which have been met except for the post timestamp. OK so they didnt meet the "terms", or the title? |
|
|
|
I don't see how getting a unit to Luke-Jr is anything remotely like shipping.
This! Shipping means customers getting ordered retail units. I don't get whats there to debate about this. The debate is because the betsofbitcoin bet does not require either of those. It simply requires a non-BFL employee to post pictures to bitcointalk of a hashing unit with a hashrate within 75% of advertised rate. All of this is completely useless for indications of shipping outside of that bet, except that it does show that true shipping will happen soon, and that bfgminer will support it. "Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013" Distinctly says ship. This picture, is from their development suite, as in youtube. Nothing has shipped, (And yes, it's 2 singles, same plugs, same power checker - hell even the piece of paper on the plug near the socket - white thing is the same) What a waste of time. I guess luke has a bet and is being desperate? Dont understand. Unless tastless april fools? |
|
|
|
is same setup / pictures from their dev video, same hardware, plugs, laptop etc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4bgho5JSIis just part of the development process. afaik no customers have received any units? or can some say they have? |
|
|
|
[23:42] <a_meteorite> Luke-Jr: that's the Little SC I'm assuming [23:42] <Luke-Jr> a_meteorite: it's a defective board because I was impatient. [23:43] <a_meteorite> that would explain the HW errors [23:44] <a_meteorite> did you go to BFL HQ or was it shipped? assuming you can reveal that.. [23:44] <a_meteorite> I think you did go there at one point but I didn't think you stayed/went back [23:44] <a_meteorite> that was like... 2 weeks ago [23:49] <jzk> At this point I'm not sure he can even reveal his own existence [23:54] <Luke-Jr> a_meteorite: I've physically touched it, but I've left it at BFL for the time being. ~Bruno K~ Ok folks, Luke is the proud owner of the first BFL Little Single ASIC off the line as of about an hour and a (...) Expand Luke-Jr: has posted pictures of his BFL ASICs. Summarized: (1) Item was not shipped (2) Josh made the pictures April Fools' joke? Or just the usual lies from BFL/Josh ...? same setup / hardware as in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4bgho5JSIwhy luke lying? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
