BFL offers 1000 BTC back up on power claims

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Apologies for jumping in earlier and messing things up a tad. I just now realized that this thread was started last year, assuming it was a recent thread still hashing the 1000 BTC bet(?), thinking all along it's been a continuation from a recent timeline.

I now clearly see that at one time BFL stated that they don't get involve with bets, yet later did put out a statement contrary to that, albeit they may not consider it a bet, but I'm not sure as to what else to call it.

The way I now read it is that we clearly have two, count 'em, 2 1000 BTC bets offered up at approximately the same time by two different entities. Ain't this special!

Quote from: Inaba on October 19, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Published on 10-19-2012 06:33 PM                              66 Comments

We are so confident in our power consumption that we are offering up 1000 BTC to charity if we miss our power consumption targets by more than 10%. We are offering our devices at 1 watt consumed per gigahash. If our power targets end up consuming more than 1.1w of power per gigahash, we will donate 1000 BTC to charity! How is that for confidence in our power usage?

[1714179437]

1714179437

[1714179437]

1714179437

[malevolent]

Anyone know of any updates concerning the topic of these bets?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Anyone know of any updates concerning the topic of these bets?

Update: Nada update!

OTOH!

Assembler: Señor, Sonny, we have run out of parts to make Jalapeños.
Josh: I'll handle this, Sonny. Then tu go home at lunche today.
Sonny: Well played!
Josh: I love Mondays!

[surebet]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=208837.0

[smoothie]

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side.  He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims. 

So there it is:  Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will.  I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products.  Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?

Just figured I would quote this.

[zvs]

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side.  He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.  

So there it is:  Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will.  I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products.  Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?

Just figured I would quote this.

'offering', 'willing'

but there is no "bet" as outlined in paragraph 1 if this tom person didn't 'agree to do the same'.  did he?  i'm not going to read this whole thread.  if not, then why dredge up this old bs?

maybe there is a better post to quote?

[surebet]

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side.  He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.  

So there it is:  Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will.  I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products.  Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?

Just figured I would quote this.

'offering', 'willing'

but there is no "bet" as outlined in paragraph 1 if this tom person didn't 'agree to do the same'.  did he?  i'm not going to read this whole thread.  if not, then why dredge up this old bs?

maybe there is a better post to quote?

In fact, there is.

Na, I knew Tom would chicken out and run back into his hole, so it was largely irrelevant as far as Tom goes.  I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does.  I never expected Tom to honor the intent of his bet anyway (Simply because he had no intention of going through with it from the start), so it was largely altruistic on my part to begin with, but only in so far as I don't think I will have to pay up and I know Tom would... but I'm more than willing to escrow the amount until such time as is required.

Emphasis mine.

Arguably he should have been Toxx'ed as soon as the funds didn't show up in escrow, but you know, forum collusion and all.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Na, I knew Tom would chicken out and run back into his hole, so it was largely irrelevant as far as Tom goes.  I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does.  I never expected Tom to honor the intent of his bet anyway (Simply because he had no intention of going through with it from the start), so it was largely altruistic on my part to begin with, but only in so far as I don't think I will have to pay up and I know Tom would... but I'm more than willing to escrow the amount until such time as is required.

Another mother fuckin' memo I didn't get! When the hell did it become okay for a COO of a company to make bets on behalf of the company they work for?

Now read the last bold statement carefully! Josh is stating that he's confident that he would win the bet if Tom followed through, but since Tom back out, Josh offers up 1000 BTC on behalf of the company and is willing to put said amount in escrow, of which he didn't do, for he didn't need to because he's a man of his word.

That's Bet one/1/uno for 1000 BTC.

Now, for bet(?) two/2/dos for 1000 BTC.

A representative of BFL (not Josh, though not stipulated) offers up a guarantee of 1000 BTC on their official forum, done so to garner more sales, of which they accomplished said task.

Now, let's get this mother fuckin' straight! There are two, not one, 1000 BTC bets/guarantees that need to be honored. Both were offered up on separate channels and were never meant to be of the same ilk, albeit they may have been combined as such at a later date.

[surebet]

When the hell did it become okay for a COO of a company to make bets on behalf of the company they work for?

It's perfectly acceptable for a C-level administrator to make these kinds of calls, even if it means the other partners might feel the need to bludgeon him afterwards.

[zvs]

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side.  He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.  

So there it is:  Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will.  I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products.  Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?

Just figured I would quote this.

'offering', 'willing'

but there is no "bet" as outlined in paragraph 1 if this tom person didn't 'agree to do the same'.  did he?  i'm not going to read this whole thread.  if not, then why dredge up this old bs?

maybe there is a better post to quote?

In fact, there is.

Na, I knew Tom would chicken out and run back into his hole, so it was largely irrelevant as far as Tom goes.  I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does.  I never expected Tom to honor the intent of his bet anyway (Simply because he had no intention of going through with it from the start), so it was largely altruistic on my part to begin with, but only in so far as I don't think I will have to pay up and I know Tom would... but I'm more than willing to escrow the amount until such time as is required.

Emphasis mine.

Arguably he should have been Toxx'ed as soon as the funds didn't show up in escrow, but you know, forum collusion and all.

ok, i am in agreements that that quoted statement is definitive

[joesmoe2012]

This still hasn't been paid off?

Typical BFL, give them a few weeks, they take a few years.

BFL, I have nothing to do with your company or any of your employees, however it seems you owe some coins, time to pay up.

If they don't make good on this bet, wouldn't that earn them a Scammer tag on the forums?

[Bitinvestor]

If they don't make good on this bet, wouldn't that earn them a Scammer tag on the forums?

They are the largest advertiser on this forum and that's why they don't get the scammer tag.

In my opinion they should get the scammer tag and they shouldn't be allowed to advertise here again until they have shipped their outstanding orders and paid their debts. We don't need prominent Big Fat Liars.

[FloridaBear]

Here's what worries me:

meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Since BFL never delivered any "Single SC" products, this could allow them to weasel out of the original "bet." Although:

If our power targets end up consuming more than 1.1w of power per gigahash, we will donate 1000 BTC to charity

seems pretty straightforward, and should be honored, since none of their products (at least version 1) will be even close to 1.1w/GH.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side.  He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.  

So there it is:  Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will.  I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products.  Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?

Unlike Josh, I'm not going to bother the mods by putting this in the scammer section, but somebody else is more than welcome to do such.

As any sane person can see, Josh owes 1000 BTC to some charity(s). This has nothing to do with BFL's guarantee, runeks' bet, or not having to honor it because Tom is out of the picture. Reread the very first sentence if you're unsure of Josh's intent. The following two sentences was Josh's way of coercing Tom to act.

As many times as this 1000 BTC guarantee, of sorts, has been brought to Josh's attention, he has failed to address it, just like he has failed to readdress the in-two-weeks^TM FCC certification from back in November of last year and inform us of who was Sonny K. he spoke with when he first went to BFL's former facility in KC, MO, Sonny's step dad's old photo studio, later referring to said Sonny as Sonny Vleisides.

I look forward to Josh's reply once he wakes from his nap and gets on with his daily chat with LukeJr between midnight and 2AM.

[Syke]

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Still waiting on that 1000 BTC to charity donation.

[cedivad]

Lol.
Good memories.

[ThickAsThieves]

I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Still waiting on that 1000 BTC to charity donation.

Didn't you hear, they gave it to themselves.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Na, I knew Tom would chicken out and run back into his hole, so it was largely irrelevant as far as Tom goes.  I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does.  I never expected Tom to honor the intent of his bet anyway (Simply because he had no intention of going through with it from the start), so it was largely altruistic on my part to begin with, but only in so far as I don't think I will have to pay up and I know Tom would... but I'm more than willing to escrow the amount until such time as is required.

Another mother fuckin' memo I didn't get! When the hell did it become okay for a COO of a company to make bets on behalf of the company they work for?

Now read the last bold statement carefully! Josh is stating that he's confident that he would win the bet if Tom followed through, but since Tom back out, Josh offers up 1000 BTC on behalf of the company and is willing to put said amount in escrow, of which he didn't do, for he didn't need to because he's a man of his word.

That's Bet one/1/uno for 1000 BTC.

Now, for bet(?) two/2/dos for 1000 BTC.

A representative of BFL (not Josh, though not stipulated) offers up a guarantee of 1000 BTC on their official forum, done so to garner more sales, of which they accomplished said task.

Now, let's get this mother fuckin' straight! There are two, not one, 1000 BTC bets/guarantees that need to be honored. Both were offered up on separate channels and were never meant to be of the same ilk, albeit they may have been combined as such at a later date.

[b!z]

What happened in this thread? Did the 1000 BTC get donated to charity yet?

[cedivad]

What happened in this thread? Did the 1000 BTC get donated to charity yet?

They created an ad-hoc charity they donated the 1000btc to.