Butterflylabs Huge SCAM

[SgtSpike]

Currently, people getting their devices can probably expect some profit on them (at least if they didn't pay in BTC back before BTC went through the roof).

No one paid "in BTC".  They paid in USD with BTC.  It is as useless to compare an investment in BTC with an investment in a mining machine as it is to compare an investment in gold mining equipment with an investment in gold itself.  Hindsight is 20/20, and no one knew that BTC would be worth as much as it is today when they ordered mining equipment with the price at $5.  They chose to invest in mining equipment instead of Bitcoin itself, while Bitcoin itself has shown itself to be the more profitable investment.  Both investments have proven to be profitable - just because the profit would have been higher in one investment does not mean the investment in the other is a loss.

This is wrong.  Bitpay allows the merchant to chose the conversion after the fact ($ or BTC, or both).  If the BTC was converted entirely to $ then it was, in fact, by BFL's election; nobody else's.  (aka BFL is entirely liable for this decision)  I know that sounds like lawyer speak, whomever, but what it really means is simply, BFL chose to convert the BTC to $ and thus lose the value on their own.  Everyone who spent BTC for devices, paid BTC for devices.  There isn't any way around it after the fact.  None of your terms, as illegal that they might already be, touches this point.

Lukejrk - Sorry for the misidentification, but you are still an asshat to suggest that because enron existed, people get raped, etc, such is life.  Fix it or gtfo.

I was simply refuting the point that people who paid in BTC are failing to make a profit.  Purchasers of BFL miners who paid with BTC will still make a profit, at least according to the definition of profit used by every businessperson in the world.  It is inaccurate to say that people who purchased using BTC will not make a profit compared to people who paid with USD.  Both types of purchasers used the same amount of value to buy the miners, both will make a profit, and both could (likely) have had a greater profit had they simply invested directly in BTC instead of buying miners.

[1713426539]

1713426539

[1713426539]

1713426539

[jordaninthesky]

Currently, people getting their devices can probably expect some profit on them (at least if they didn't pay in BTC back before BTC went through the roof).

No one paid "in BTC".  They paid in USD with BTC.  It is as useless to compare an investment in BTC with an investment in a mining machine as it is to compare an investment in gold mining equipment with an investment in gold itself.  Hindsight is 20/20, and no one knew that BTC would be worth as much as it is today when they ordered mining equipment with the price at $5.  They chose to invest in mining equipment instead of Bitcoin itself, while Bitcoin itself has shown itself to be the more profitable investment.  Both investments have proven to be profitable - just because the profit would have been higher in one investment does not mean the investment in the other is a loss.

This is wrong.  Bitpay allows the merchant to chose the conversion after the fact ($ or BTC, or both).  If the BTC was converted entirely to $ then it was, in fact, by BFL's election; nobody else's.  (aka BFL is entirely liable for this decision)  I know that sounds like lawyer speak, whomever, but what it really means is simply, BFL chose to convert the BTC to $ and thus lose the value on their own.  Everyone who spent BTC for devices, paid BTC for devices.  There isn't any way around it after the fact.  None of your terms, as illegal that they might already be, touches this point.

Lukejrk - Sorry for the misidentification, but you are still an asshat to suggest that because enron existed, people get raped, etc, such is life.  Fix it or gtfo.

I was simply refuting the point that people who paid in BTC are failing to make a profit.  Purchasers of BFL miners who paid with BTC will still make a profit, at least according to the definition of profit used by every businessperson in the world.  It is inaccurate to say that people who purchased using BTC will not make a profit compared to people who paid with USD.  Both types of purchasers used the same amount of value to buy the miners, both will make a profit, and both could (likely) have had a greater profit had they simply invested directly in BTC instead of buying miners.

I was refuting the notion that "nobody paid with BTC".  It's an absurd notion.  

Regardless how you measure the bottom line, the promises made versus what was delivered have both heaven and hell between them.  People who paid with BTC lost an immediate opportunity, but I'm sure they won't mind waiting an exponential to infinite amount of time to mine their 200 BTC back, in sight the ever increasing difficulty.  Considering, too, that there is a direct correlation between BTC and $ in this transaction, the fluctuations in trade values have to be included in the calculations as well.

[SgtSpike]

Regardless how you measure the bottom line, the promises made versus what was delivered have both heaven and hell between them.  People who paid with BTC lost an immediate opportunity, but I'm sure they won't mind waiting an exponential to infinite amount of time to mine their 200 BTC back, in sight the ever increasing difficulty.  Considering, too, that there is a direct correlation between BTC and $ in this transaction, the fluctuations in trade values have to be included in the calculations as well.

I'm not sure what your point is.  Again, we're back to hindsight is 20/20, and Bitcoin itself would have been a better investment than miners.  People who pre-ordered mining machines back in June 2011 obviously thought they would be a better investment than Bitcoin itself, took the risk, and have thus been proven wrong.  They will still make a profit, but will not make as great a profit as they would have had they simply saved or invested in Bitcoin itself.

[becoin]

Purchasers of BFL miners who paid with BTC will still make a profit, at least according to the definition of profit used by every businessperson in the world. 

Interesting. Would you mind quoting this definition? Simple math shows people that paid their BFL pre-orders one year ago in BTC have lost a lot of capital. What are your calculations?

[becoin]

People who pre-ordered mining machines back in June 2011 obviously thought they would be a better investment than Bitcoin itself, took the risk, and have thus been proven wrong.

LOL... The only reason they have been proven wrong is because BFL failed to keep their side of the deal. BFL failed to deliver what they've been paid for. Moreover, customers don't take capital risks. Investors do. Are you saying BFL customers are investors?!

[darkmule]

I was simply refuting the point that people who paid in BTC are failing to make a profit.

I disagree with your point, but understand it.  People who paid with BTC (assuming they get their units before the difficulty goes through the roof) will probably have more BTC afterward.  However, they would have even more BTC had they done something else, such as if they had sold BTC at $250 and then bought it back at even where it is, $90 (actually $94 just checked).

And if, as most people even those who use BTC, they denominated their net worth in some other currency, like USD, they spent BTC on their pre-orders at USD values back when BTC was worth much less, and had they not even made a purchase, but simply sat on their BTC, they'd already have made a huge profit.  So buying a pre-order was a huge mistake.  It was based on the notion that BFL was going to deliver product with vastly greater specs than anyone else was able to deliver.  It was coming any day now.  So stay away from Avalon and anyone else (those who are actually delivering reliably).

That's really where the scam part comes in.

[jordaninthesky]

Regardless how you measure the bottom line, the promises made versus what was delivered have both heaven and hell between them.  People who paid with BTC lost an immediate opportunity, but I'm sure they won't mind waiting an exponential to infinite amount of time to mine their 200 BTC back, in sight the ever increasing difficulty.  Considering, too, that there is a direct correlation between BTC and $ in this transaction, the fluctuations in trade values have to be included in the calculations as well.

I'm not sure what your point is.  Again, we're back to hindsight is 20/20, and Bitcoin itself would have been a better investment than miners.  People who pre-ordered mining machines back in June 2011 obviously thought they would be a better investment than Bitcoin itself, took the risk, and have thus been proven wrong.  They will still make a profit, but will not make as great a profit as they would have had they simply saved or invested in Bitcoin itself.

You are still wrong man.  That's assuming that people get their devices and are able to mine back the BTC that they used to pay for it.  At this point, you have a recovery of %0.5 recovery a day, and dropping.  Dropping exponentially.  In 15 more days, it'll probably be closer to  %0.1 and then 15 days after that %0.05.  In 200 days you still will be at something like %45.764742155 recovery, earning %0.000005 BTC a day.  Get it?  The earlier you got in on BFL (paying with BTC), the more screwed you get coming out.  Definitely more so than cash spenders.  Avalon was the way to go.  Actually, anything BTC related that wasn't a scam was the way to go.  Obviously.

[SgtSpike]

Regardless how you measure the bottom line, the promises made versus what was delivered have both heaven and hell between them.  People who paid with BTC lost an immediate opportunity, but I'm sure they won't mind waiting an exponential to infinite amount of time to mine their 200 BTC back, in sight the ever increasing difficulty.  Considering, too, that there is a direct correlation between BTC and $ in this transaction, the fluctuations in trade values have to be included in the calculations as well.

I'm not sure what your point is.  Again, we're back to hindsight is 20/20, and Bitcoin itself would have been a better investment than miners.  People who pre-ordered mining machines back in June 2011 obviously thought they would be a better investment than Bitcoin itself, took the risk, and have thus been proven wrong.  They will still make a profit, but will not make as great a profit as they would have had they simply saved or invested in Bitcoin itself.

You are still wrong man.  That's assuming that people get their devices and are able to mine back the BTC that they used to pay for it.  At this point, you have a recovery of %0.5 recovery a day, and dropping.  Dropping exponentially.  In 15 more days, it'll probably be closer to  %0.1 and then 15 days after that %0.05.  In 200 days you still will be at something like %45.764742155 recovery, earning %0.000005 BTC a day.  Get it?  The earlier you got in on BFL (paying with BTC), the more screwed you get coming out.  Definitely more so than cash spenders.  Avalon was the way to go.  Actually, anything BTC related that wasn't a scam was the way to go.  Obviously.

I'm not wrong.  I bought two miners for $2,600 worth of Bitcoins.  I could have instead invested that money in Bitcoins (by not spending it).  I will make way more than $2,600 with these miners, so I will definitely make a profit.  If I had invested in Bitcoins at the time, I could have more profit than I would have made if I had not purchased these miners.

Bitcoin would have made a better investment, but I am still profiting with these miners.

There is functionally ZERO difference between someone who bought a $1,300 miner with BTC and someone who bought a $1,300 miner with USD.  Both had equal opportunity to invest that money in BTC instead of miners.  If the one who bought with BTC had instead kept his money in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.  If the one who bought with USD had instead invested that $1,300 in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.

[becoin]

There is functionally ZERO difference between someone who bought a $1,300 miner with BTC and someone who bought a $1,300 miner with USD.  Both had equal opportunity to invest that money in BTC instead of miners.  If the one who bought with BTC had instead kept his money in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.  If the one who bought with USD had instead invested that $1,300 in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.

This is nonsense. What are you blabbering about?

Both had equal opportunity to invest that money in BTC instead of miners.

To invest what money? People had BTC (not USD) BEFORE they purchased pre-orders from BFL. And they lost in a biiiig way compared to those that wisely decided to not purchase anything from BFL.

[darkmule]

Bitcoin would have made a better investment, but I am still profiting with these miners.

So you're saying you have them already and are profiting?

[jordaninthesky]

There is functionally ZERO difference between someone who bought a $1,300 miner with BTC and someone who bought a $1,300 miner with USD. 

If you spent 200 BTC on a miner, and still don't have your machine, I highly doubt that you'll be making your BTC back in the next couple years, if ever, in light of the increasing difficulty.  People lost out in terms of opportunity, sure, but BFL is obligated to return what was paid for not delivering as well.

Further more, BFL's choice to refund people who paid BTC in $ instead of BTC was criminal, and anyone associated with the company deserves a scammer tag for that alone.

I don't know what you are on about SgtSpike.

[SgtSpike]

Bitcoin would have made a better investment, but I am still profiting with these miners.

So you're saying you have them already and are profiting?

Yes and in a couple of days, yes.

There is functionally ZERO difference between someone who bought a $1,300 miner with BTC and someone who bought a $1,300 miner with USD.

If you spent 200 BTC on a miner, and still don't have your machine, I highly doubt that you'll be making your BTC back in the next couple years, if ever, in light of the increasing difficulty.  People lost out in terms of opportunity, sure, but BFL is obligated to return what was paid for not delivering as well.

Further more, BFL's choice to refund people who paid BTC in $ instead of BTC was criminal, and anyone associated with the company deserves a scammer tag for that alone.

I don't know what you are on about SgtSpike.

I doubt I'll make my BTC back either.  But I'll still be making a huge profit.

BFL's prices were clearly listed in USD, not BTC.  Therefore, the refund they give will be in equivalent USD value.  If BTC had dropped to $0.25/ea between the time of the order and now, do you think people would be complaining that they received back 20x the original Bitcoins they had paid?  Or, if BFL was doing what you want, and only refunding the original BTC amount, do you think people would be complaining that they received a BTC refund only worth $65 when they paid $1,300 of BTC to begin with?  The fact of the matter is, the only fair way to refund people is by using the original written purchase price, which was denominated in USD, not BTC.

If you think it's criminal, take them to court about it and see if you can find a judge anywhere to agree with you.  I doubt you'll find one.

[bcp19]

People who pre-ordered mining machines back in June 2011 obviously thought they would be a better investment than Bitcoin itself, took the risk, and have thus been proven wrong.

LOL... The only reason they have been proven wrong is because BFL failed to keep their side of the deal. BFL failed to deliver what they've been paid for. Moreover, customers don't take capital risks. Investors do. Are you saying BFL customers are investors?!

Technically they were investors as it was known at the time that BFL did not have this technology in hand and would be creating, testing and perfecting it.  Purchasing something that you KNOW is in development is an investment into the company to produce said items.  Look at ASICMiner, originally he set out to build units for sale, but then decided to mine with them instead and pay out dividends.

@Sgtspike I believe you mean June 2012, as they were not offering ASICs in 2011.

I myself didn't order until June of this year, and unlike the majority of people I see whining, I am content to wait as I know they are in production and I will get what I paid for.  I daily laugh at the comment of people crying because 'they are losing out on potential mining profits' all because BFL is a scam.  Since BFL *is* shipping, they aren't a scam.  They may have been too optomistic about what they could produce and when, but they aren't a scam.  If they were truly a scam, no one would have received a single piece of equipment and they would have vanished into the night never to be heard from again.

Let's look into this 'loss of mining profits' a second though.  Let's assume BFL did fulfill they expectations and shipped back in Nov or Dec last year.  Boom, network difficulty skyrockets.  Conservative estimates from just using people who listed their orders are that over 1 PetaHash of speed would have been added to the network from the 1st 6 months orders.  Imagine that the network speed jumped by 50x in December 2012.  GPUs would be worthless for BTC now and altcoins would be flooded with them, causing their difficulty to also rise.  Guess what though?  BTC is < $30.  People anxious to recoup their investments are dumping their coins and prices drop (sound familiar?  BTC dropped from $120 to $60 after the network hash almost doubled in the last 2 months, it has since rebounded to about $90).  The dynamic has shifted though and ASIC mining is the only way to go, only with the network hash where it is, ASIC cost is getting prohibitive.

Now where are we though?  Would Bitcoin have taken off in April if ASICs ruled the market and the average Joe would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to be competitive?  Would we still have dozens of alt-coins to play with?

None if it matter thou, cause it is all speculation abiout 'what if....'.  There are a lot of people who would not now be in BTC mining if ASICs had come out on schedule cause it would never be worthwhile unless BTC could somehow spike to $1000 or more.

[bcp19]

Regardless how you measure the bottom line, the promises made versus what was delivered have both heaven and hell between them.  People who paid with BTC lost an immediate opportunity, but I'm sure they won't mind waiting an exponential to infinite amount of time to mine their 200 BTC back, in sight the ever increasing difficulty.  Considering, too, that there is a direct correlation between BTC and $ in this transaction, the fluctuations in trade values have to be included in the calculations as well.

I'm not sure what your point is.  Again, we're back to hindsight is 20/20, and Bitcoin itself would have been a better investment than miners.  People who pre-ordered mining machines back in June 2011 obviously thought they would be a better investment than Bitcoin itself, took the risk, and have thus been proven wrong.  They will still make a profit, but will not make as great a profit as they would have had they simply saved or invested in Bitcoin itself.

You are still wrong man.  That's assuming that people get their devices and are able to mine back the BTC that they used to pay for it.  At this point, you have a recovery of %0.5 recovery a day, and dropping.  Dropping exponentially.  In 15 more days, it'll probably be closer to  %0.1 and then 15 days after that %0.05.  In 200 days you still will be at something like %45.764742155 recovery, earning %0.000005 BTC a day.  Get it?  The earlier you got in on BFL (paying with BTC), the more screwed you get coming out.  Definitely more so than cash spenders.  Avalon was the way to go.  Actually, anything BTC related that wasn't a scam was the way to go.  Obviously.

I'm not wrong.  I bought two miners for $2,600 worth of Bitcoins.  I could have instead invested that money in Bitcoins (by not spending it).  I will make way more than $2,600 with these miners, so I will definitely make a profit.  If I had invested in Bitcoins at the time, I could have more profit than I would have made if I had not purchased these miners.

Bitcoin would have made a better investment, but I am still profiting with these miners.

There is functionally ZERO difference between someone who bought a $1,300 miner with BTC and someone who bought a $1,300 miner with USD.  Both had equal opportunity to invest that money in BTC instead of miners.  If the one who bought with BTC had instead kept his money in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.  If the one who bought with USD had instead invested that $1,300 in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.

You make a very good point here, but there are some other thing to be considered:

How many of the people who paid $2600 in BTC for these miners would not have spent it on something else?   

What if you were holding stock instead of BTC and decided to sell it for $30 a share to make a $1300 purchase, would it be fair to blame the company you bought from if the stock then rises to $100 a share?  It's not like BFL held onto all this BTC they were paid, they had to sell it or use it in their purchases.

[molecular]

There is functionally ZERO difference between someone who bought a $1,300 miner with BTC and someone who bought a $1,300 miner with USD.  Both had equal opportunity to invest that money in BTC instead of miners.  If the one who bought with BTC had instead kept his money in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.  If the one who bought with USD had instead invested that $1,300 in BTC, he would have around $23,400 today.

This is nonsense. What are you blabbering about?

Both had equal opportunity to invest that money in BTC instead of miners.

To invest what money? People had BTC (not USD) BEFORE they purchased pre-orders from BFL. And they lost in a biiiig way compared to those that wisely decided to not purchase anything from BFL.

wrong, the made 2 decisions (if they didn't buy back the BTC used for transferring USD to bfl): 1.) withdraw investment from BTC 2.) buy miner from bfl. The "selling of BTC" is implicit and an aware customer will have thought of it like that.

[lucasjkr]

I was simply refuting the point that people who paid in BTC are failing to make a profit.

I disagree with your point, but understand it.  People who paid with BTC (assuming they get their units before the difficulty goes through the roof) will probably have more BTC afterward.  However, they would have even more BTC had they done something else, such as if they had sold BTC at $250 and then bought it back at even where it is, $90 (actually $94 just checked).

And if, as most people even those who use BTC, they denominated their net worth in some other currency, like USD, they spent BTC on their pre-orders at USD values back when BTC was worth much less, and had they not even made a purchase, but simply sat on their BTC, they'd already have made a huge profit.  So buying a pre-order was a huge mistake.  It was based on the notion that BFL was going to deliver product with vastly greater specs than anyone else was able to deliver.  It was coming any day now.  So stay away from Avalon and anyone else (those who are actually delivering reliably).

That's really where the scam part comes in.

This is silly.

Butterfly Labs sold their products in dollar denominated form. Whether a purchaser decided to pay for it in BTC at the then current exchange rate or with dollars was their own choice, not Butterfly Labs'. Recall that in June 2012, BTC was $6ish. Recall that in June 2011 it was $18, $20, even $30 at times. So you're talking about a currency, that, at the time of purchase, had lost anywhere from 2/3 to 4/5 of its value since the preceeding year.

But, apparently Butterfly Labs knew something that no one else knew, so they took in orders at $6/BTC and sat on them because they knew that BTC would turn around and hit $240 9 months later? And the people that paid their bitcoins over when they were $6/USD also knew that bitcoin would reverse course and hit that price level 9 months later but paid with Bitcoin instead of cash because they were confident that they'd get their product in 2 weeks so they could mine back all the coins they spent in time for that meteoric rise? And then they would have sold those coins at the top of the market and jumped back in at $90? Why wouldnt' they have jumped back in at $70?

This is an awful lot of speculation. It's a lot of looking in the rear view mirror. Nobody but nobody knew where BTC would be priced later on. And every single person, had they believed in their heart of hearts that BTC would take off, every one of them could have made their purchase in dollars rather than BTC.

It's water under the bridge.

[jordaninthesky]

BFL's prices were clearly listed in USD, not BTC.  Therefore, the refund they give will be in equivalent USD value.  If BTC had dropped to $0.25/ea between the time of the order and now, do you think people would be complaining that they received back 20x the original Bitcoins they had paid?  Or, if BFL was doing what you want, and only refunding the original BTC amount, do you think people would be complaining that they received a BTC refund only worth $65 when they paid $1,300 of BTC to begin with?  The fact of the matter is, the only fair way to refund people is by using the original written purchase price, which was denominated in USD, not BTC.

BFL clearly stated that they accepted BTC as a form of payment.  Barter laws would sanctify this point.  After a certain amount of time of nondelivery, people have the right to demand a refund, and if the value of BTC was falling with no hopes of ever bouncing back, customers would have to settle for the BTC that they spent to be returned.  If you have your device, and know that you will not make the BTC back on it that you spent, then it is not "profit" in terms of BTC.  You cannot just switch $ with BTC so freely just because we are all aware of exchange rates.  I get that you are trying to be optimistic though.

bcp19 comes out here and says things like "Since BFL *is* shipping, they aren't a scam".  Right, like just as long as you are getting a percentage that you were promised, it's not a ponzi scheme.  "Since BFL is shipping to a few people, they aren't scamming everybody as much as originally thought." -  That's the best logical conclusion.

Furthermore, I need to address this: "Technically they were investors as it was known at the time that BFL did not have this technology in hand and would be creating, testing and perfecting it."

Technically the chips were on the final phase of production, and they are shipping the ASICs in October 2012.  So you believe what you want.  Where they optimistic.  Yes.  Did they lie?  Also yes.

[darkmule]

I'll agree that the prices were denominated in USD.  I'd also agree that people who purchased would, in a refund situation, only be entitled to USD, not BTC.  I've seen a couple people trying to get refunds denominated in BTC, and that would frankly be complete bullshit.

In a breach of contract situation, you are generally entitled only to the value of what you contracted.  Since BTC has vastly appreciated, you are not entitled to a windfall profit by getting back what you exchanged for USD to purchase something that wasn't delivered.

It still remains a gigantic dick move by BFL, but while I think their violation of consumer protection laws and mail order laws is, in fact, illegal, nobody is going to get back BTC they used to buy BFL equipment.  Even if they won a lawsuit.  Just because that's not how contract law works.

So on this one issue, BFL is in the right.

That doesn't change the fact that people who bought a unit with BTC could have done a hell of a lot better by staying away from BFL and doing something else instead.  It just means that among their other jerk moves, this one wasn't illegal.

[SgtSpike]

BFL's prices were clearly listed in USD, not BTC.  Therefore, the refund they give will be in equivalent USD value.  If BTC had dropped to $0.25/ea between the time of the order and now, do you think people would be complaining that they received back 20x the original Bitcoins they had paid?  Or, if BFL was doing what you want, and only refunding the original BTC amount, do you think people would be complaining that they received a BTC refund only worth $65 when they paid $1,300 of BTC to begin with?  The fact of the matter is, the only fair way to refund people is by using the original written purchase price, which was denominated in USD, not BTC.

BFL clearly stated that they accepted BTC as a form of payment.  Barter laws would sanctify this point.  After a certain amount of time of nondelivery, people have the right to demand a refund, and if the value of BTC was falling with no hopes of ever bouncing back, customers would have to settle for the BTC that they spent to be returned.  If you have your device, and know that you will not make the BTC back on it that you spent, then it is not "profit" in terms of BTC.  You cannot just switch $ with BTC so freely just because we are all aware of exchange rates.  I get that you are trying to be optimistic though.

Please do show the barter laws that "sanctify this point," because what you're saying is, if Bitcoins became worth a penny each, BFL would be a-ok to refund everyone their original BTC used to buy a $1,300 product?  So I would get back $2 worth of BTC as a "full refund", and this would be ok with you?

It's not profit in terms of BTC, but it is still profit as defined by, well, everyone, the IRS included.

If I traded you 20 pounds of gold for a gold mining operation, and then those 20 pounds of gold suddenly became worth 5x what they were because of speculation, would I not have a profit if I was only able to mine 15 pounds of gold over the useful life of the gold mining operation?  Of course not - I'd have made a profit of 15 * 5 - 20 = 55 = almost 3 times my original investment.

[jordaninthesky]

Yeah, that's how you interpret the bottom line.  But if you were measuring the bottom line based on gold, then no.  I'm not questioning that you are getting ahead in terms of $.  I'm questioning the integrity of the process.  If I traded someone 5 flawless diamonds for a machine that they personally valued at $55 million, but they never gave me the machine.  I'd be entitled to my 5 flawless diamonds back, right?  But if the value of diamonds decreased while waiting on the machine, and then the person said never-mind, and gave the diamonds back, I possibly have a lost opportunity-based lawsuit.

Darkmule has an excellent point, because it can be calculated that BFL were in it for the money and not BTC.  However, they were intentionally deceptive in appearing like they were fully supporting the BTC network, and they have said contradicting things:  from one being that they are going to secure the value of your investment, to then saying that BTC is a gamble; no liability!  So the grey area allows for many victims to be exploited.