[topic topiary] Trolling thread topologically tossed from the terrane

[tvbcof]

That said, I am at this point pretty sure that BFL is a scam by my definition.

My conditions were designed to capture BFL lying

Your appear to have cast the net for a "scam" so wide that even if they deliver you could still consider it to be a scam. I don't understand; why do you use "scam" like this when you must surely know that that isn't how the other 99% of the English-speaking population uses it?

One possible answer is that you intend to mislead. Politicians do this, as well as lawyers and marketers. They stretch a definition of a word wide enough to cover whatever they want (which logically throws away most of the meaning; strong meanings come from specific concepts) but act like the rest of the meaning is still there. The result is that they can convey a false message without directly lying.

Eg. Politician A claims that B is "wasting billions", except A has defined waste to be "anything I wouldn't spend it on", but they hope the public will interpret it as "anything a reasonable person wouldn't spend it on" so that they think that B is a moron. It's not quite lying by omission, but I might call it lying by unjustified substitution.

You're not doing that, right? That would be bad.

If BFL were flat out lying about anything while accepting pre-order money sent to them on the basis of their setting false expectations, they are scammers in my book.

It is quite possible that Bitcoin mining ASIC could at some point down the road become an inexpensive commodity.  If BFL sits on the pre-order money (or spends it on hookers and blow) while waiting for that point then, buys enough to get the pre-order monkey off their back, yes, they delivered, and yes, they are scammers.

[1713574321]

1713574321

[fcmatt]

If BFL were flat out lying about anything while accepting pre-order money sent to them on the basis of their setting false expectations, they are scammers in my book.

I think that is already pretty clear that they outright lied about the delivery date. They knew it was not possible
but wanted to get on the money train first which worked beautifully for them.

Proof? I have none except what has taken place. Anyone with common sense can see it.

But this forum does not give out scammer tags until a moderator or one of their friends lose a buck.

[PuertoLibre]

Better yet, why don't you all fund this guys adventure?

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/644-new-facility-update-has-anyone-ever-visited-got-idea.html



His bitcoin talk name is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=56447 (JMcGrath)

He stated he had a fear that BFL would cancel his orders. I wonder if BFL will cancel all his orders now that he intends to check up on them directly?

Hey PL,looks like the same thing at bASIC's camp,minus the "adventure"   



https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1afa765ac324f84b55fc60383a5cdf42&topic=882.30

I cannot say I am surprised.

They are acting or behaving in much the same way as BFL has been for a long time.

The reaction with BFL was much the same. Tom needs to get his info straight and get on the ball quick. Telling your customers that if they can't stand the heat they should get a refund (ala BFL) is not a good business strategy.

-------------------------

I expect that when Jan 13 through the 17 comes around, that Tom will be equal to Josh. Having no answers other than yet another delay. I do have full confidence that BFL will ship in Feb. I have strong reservations that Tom might ever ship.

You might ask me why I take that position. It is because of what happened in November 25th.

[Speculation]

---There was a conflict with his Family of some kind. (I speculated privately/internally it was probably him putting his house or something valuable as collateral for more money to continue the project.)
---His business with the designer of the boards fell through, either because of the contracted showing their incompetence or because they probably told him that they would not be able to deliver on time.
---He may have been hung out to dry by his Dev team and then had to run out and get someone to replace them. (which is what happened)

Then, seemingly, everyone stopped asking what the trouble was exactly. So there were never any answers I actually saw coming out of that situation.

If any of the above is even somewhat remotely true, then Tom is more likely to implode than BFL. I have to say I like Tom quite a bit, but his BFL impersonation does not suit him well. He should go back to how he was before.

-------------------------

The only thoughts crossing my mind are that BFL tried to do too much on their first run, and the consequences followed.

Tom went the easier route and simply depended too much on the wrong design company. They may have been the weakest link in his chain.

Avalon seems to be cruising below the surface of events and is seemingly only bothered by the fact that they don't know how many chips they will utilize in one rig and whether people will mind the higher watt usage.

ASICMiner seems to be interested in mining on their own. They are the great catalyst for refunds in late January. (Says my crystal ball)
I do not feel that ASICMiner will ever fail. They are in it for themselves. The only outcry from the community is when they add to the rising difficulty.

---------------------------

Personally, if Avalon ships in January, they will be the only solution that produced an ASIC device for the common man (ahead of time). The odd thing being that 2/3 of orders have gone to the players who either have locked up peoples money and aren't (yet) delivering on the promises.

[nathanrees19]

I think that is already pretty clear that they outright lied about the delivery date. They knew it was not possible
but wanted to get on the money train first which worked beautifully for them.

Proof? I have none except what has taken place. Anyone with common sense can see it.

But this forum does not give out scammer tags until a moderator or one of their friends lose a buck.

Uh, common sense says that lying about delivery dates is only going to hurt the reputation of the company, resulting in losses of future sales. Therefore, the prior probability of "BFL blatantly lies about delivery dates even if it would hurt their reputation" is low, while the prior probability of "BFL makes mistakes because it's their first ASIC product" is pretty high. You would therefore need strong evidence which favors them lying over them messing up before you could rationally believe that they were actually lying all along.

What evidence do we see? We see a couple of missed deadlines, which would be consistent with both possibilities (hence the probabilities don't change; lying is still "low", messing up is still "high"). What, then, has "taken place" which dramatically increased the probability of them lying all along?

[Syke]

What evidence do we see? We see a couple of missed deadlines, which would be consistent with both possibilities (hence the probabilities don't change; lying is still "low", messing up is still "high"). What, then, has "taken place" which dramatically increased the probability of them lying all along?

They either lied, or are incompetent. Take your pick. They claimed, in Oct, that they could still meet the Oct date. Not only did they miss Oct, they missed Nov, and Dec, and they're still not done missing dates. There was no way they could have met the claimed Oct date.

[nathanrees19]

There was no way they could have met the claimed Oct date.

Fun fact: hindsight bias is extremely strong, even when you tell people specifically to avoid it.

They either lied, or are incompetent. Take your pick.

I disagree. There is one reality, and if everyone looks at the evidence rationally, they should reach the same conclusion. I'm asking for the evidence supporting "they lied" over "they messed up like most startups do" because I'm not seeing it, yet I'm seeing many claims about them lying.

[tvbcof]

If BFL were flat out lying about anything while accepting pre-order money sent to them on the basis of their setting false expectations, they are scammers in my book.

I think that is already pretty clear that they outright lied about the delivery date. They knew it was not possible
but wanted to get on the money train first which worked beautifully for them.

I'm not normally a very generous person, but missing a delivery date in and of itself does not make one a scammer in my opinion.  If they had legitimate reason to hope for that date and something didn't go accourding to plan/hope, I do not consider it a scam.

Proof? I have none except what has taken place. Anyone with common sense can see it.

Yes.  As time goes by, a scam is res ipsa loquitur, at least in terms of deliberately setting false expectations for the purposes of monetary gain.  This would be negated to some extent if they give everyone back the pre-order money if/when there is a diluge of requests.  I would be surprised if they give refunds when these start to significantly outpace pre-orders...because, again, I now lean towards the theory that BFL is a scammers nest.

But this forum does not give out scammer tags until a moderator or one of their friends lose a buck.

LOL

edit: Better Latin after consulting wikipedia...though I still probably mis-used it...

[mrb]

...
Am I misreading your "certainty"?
...

Yes, and more than that.  I started out with a general musing on how long it would be before 'marks' of a hypothetical ASIC scam operation got suspicious when there was a failure to deliver.  I didn't say anything about BFL.

Yes, you said this about all ASIC manufacturers (or was it just BFL? either way BFL is included in your criticism):

On roughly the same topic, it would be interesting to see a plot of the months past initial ASIC delivery estimates vs. the number of pre-order 'customers' who sense they have likely been swindled.

But you just clarified you were not "certain" of this swindling accusation. I advise you to word carefully your criticism next time. I took you as a troll making baseless accusations, when in fact, you were just expressing a "probability".

I do not like the stipulations outlined in id=665 for several reasons.  Among them, the opportunity for BFL to simply buy someone elses technology exist.  And, of course, being 10 months behind schedule is questionable to say the least.

Why do you care? As long as they deliver ASICs, I don't care how or who makes them, this is literally none of my business. Bet #665 was written to allow BFL to be 8 months late, not 10. This allowance is because we all know they suck at planning.

[tvbcof]

...
Am I misreading your "certainty"?
...

Yes, and more than that.  I started out with a general musing on how long it would be before 'marks' of a hypothetical ASIC scam operation got suspicious when there was a failure to deliver.  I didn't say anything about BFL.

Yes, you said this about all ASIC manufacturers (or was it just BFL? either way BFL is included in your criticism):

On roughly the same topic, it would be interesting to see a plot of the months past initial ASIC delivery estimates vs. the number of pre-order 'customers' who sense they have likely been swindled.

But you just clarified you were not "certain" of this swindling accusation. I advise you to word carefully your criticism next time. I took you as a troll making baseless accusations, when in fact, you were just expressing a "probability".

The only reason I am not 'certain' is that I've a very high bar for 'certainty' as a general part of my nature.  I'm confident enough that BFL are scammers (as I define the term) that I'd risk a couple hundred buck...and again, with no potential for personal gain.

Ya, you dug up what I believe to be my initial text.  It is as I recalled. That is, a general curiosity about how long an ASIC scam-ee could be strung along by an ASIC scam-er in this phase of the development of the Bitcoin community.  And, of course, a wish for a decent sample size to make a meaningful scatter plot and best fit.

I do not like the stipulations outlined in id=665 for several reasons.  Among them, the opportunity for BFL to simply buy someone elses technology exist.  And, of course, being 10 months behind schedule is questionable to say the least.

Why do you care? As long as they deliver ASICs, I don't care how or who makes them, this is literally none of my business. Bet #665 was written to allow BFL to be 8 months late, not 10. This allowance is because we all know they suck at planning.

I don't care much because BFL has none of my money and there was never any chance that they would get any.

The only reason I care at all is that if/when the 'ASIC vendor scam' hits home it will probably be right up there near the top in terms of events which resulted in Bitcoiners being separated from their money.  Not good for Bitcoin generally, but by this time Bitcoin has a long history of shrugging off such setbacks and I'm sure it would this one as well.

As to the bet, it sounds like you and I agree that BFL has been utterly deceitful in efforts to get people to send them pre-order money.  Where we differ is that I consider this scamming while you do not.  Ergo, there doesn't seem to be much to bet about.

Edit: fix quotes.

[mrb]

As to the bet, it sounds like you and I agree that BFL has been utterly deceitful in efforts to get people to send them pre-order money.  Where we differ is that I consider this scamming while you do not.  Ergo, there doesn't seem to be much to bet about.

No, I don't think that BFL is deceitful, but that they are simply overly optimistic w.r.t. timelines.

[mrb]

Also...

I do not like the stipulations outlined in id=665 for several reasons.  Among them, the opportunity for BFL to simply buy someone elses technology exist.  And, of course, being 10 months behind schedule is questionable to say the least.

Why do you care? As long as they deliver ASICs, I don't care how or who makes them, this is literally none of my business. Bet #665 was written to allow BFL to be 8 months late, not 10. This allowance is because we all know they suck at planning.

I don't care much because BFL has none of my money and there was never any chance that they would get any.

The only reason I care at all is that if/when the 'ASIC vendor scam' hits home it will probably be right up there near the top in terms of events which resulted in Bitcoiners being separated from their money.

You did not answer my question: why do you care in the context of the bet if BFL buys someone else's technology?
"Oh no, if they buy ASICs from someone, then they might deliver"... makes you look not confident about your scamming accusations.
It is like saying "I am not betting because I might lose the bet". If so, then just say the latter.

[tvbcof]

Also...

I do not like the stipulations outlined in id=665 for several reasons.  Among them, the opportunity for BFL to simply buy someone elses technology exist.  And, of course, being 10 months behind schedule is questionable to say the least.

Why do you care? As long as they deliver ASICs, I don't care how or who makes them, this is literally none of my business. Bet #665 was written to allow BFL to be 8 months late, not 10. This allowance is because we all know they suck at planning.

I don't care much because BFL has none of my money and there was never any chance that they would get any.

The only reason I care at all is that if/when the 'ASIC vendor scam' hits home it will probably be right up there near the top in terms of events which resulted in Bitcoiners being separated from their money.

You did not answer my question: why do you care in the context of the bet if BFL buys someone else's technology?
"Oh no, if they buy ASICs from someone, then they might deliver"... makes you look not confident about your scamming accusations.
It is like saying "I am not betting because I might lose the bet". If so, then just say the latter.

_My_ bet is predicated on the theory that BFL were misrepresenting various thing in order to get suckers to send them pre-order funds.

From day one I expected some possibility that BFL were scammers so I had no interest in sending them money and also have not paid terribly close attention to the details of their shtick , but here is what I believe they had tried to present:

 - They have some engineer who is also an officer with their company working in France.  He designed a chip that worked, but for the good of their customers it could use some tweaking, and that explained some of the earlier delays.

 - They at least implied that they were in sole control of the processing core that they were going to be delivering.

If someone who gave enough of a shit to follow BFL's various claims want to chime in and say whether, based on BFL's statements of fact, it is a fair or unfair take-away that BFL was supposed to be more than just an average packager of someone else's IP, that would be interesting.

If I were interested in being an early adopter in ASIC, it would be highly important to me that the vendor I use is not just some re-seller of someone else gear.  This is because I would want some advantage from taking the early-adopter risk and a vendor who just cobbles together something which sometimes works (especially if taken apart to make the fan blow air the right way as with other of BFL's toys so I've read) is not a very compelling supplier.

[mrb]

The best available SHA256 semiconductor IP on the market does 73 Mhash/Joule at 130nm. I have tracked it myself, see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95762.0

Therefore, if BFL delivers anything significantly above 73 Mhash/Joule (even if it is a mere shrink from 130nm to 65nm), it is a very strong indicator that the tech was optimized specifically for BFL or by BFL (even a shrink would require rework). This is why my bet specifies a Mhash/Joule number. If BFL was just re-using an existing non-efficient SHA256 implementation, they would fail to meet the Mhash/Joule target, and you would win the bet.

All you need is to tell me which Mhash/Joule target would give you enough confidence to bet

[tvbcof]

The best available SHA256 semiconductor IP on the market does 73 Mhash/Joule at 130nm. I have tracked it myself, see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=95762.0

Therefore, if BFL delivers anything significantly above 73 Mhash/Joule (even if it is a mere shrink from 130nm to 65nm), it is a very strong indicator that the tech was optimized specifically for BFL or by BFL (even a shrink would require rework). This is why my bet specifies a Mhash/Joule number. If BFL was just re-using an existing non-efficient SHA256 implementation, they would fail to meet the Mhash/Joule target, and you would win the bet.

All you need is to tell me which Mhash/Joule target would give you enough confidence to bet

So, you want me to bet on some power metrics under the assumption that that will demonstrate something tangible about whether BFL are a bunch of lying scammers?  'Fraid not.  For one, I have not studied mining power consumption in general, much less circuit simulation and die size issues.  Plus, most of the numbers flying around were likely pulled straight out of someone's ass so they are hardly the basis for a logical chain of reasoning.  There is way to much chance of some technicality or other info popping up to make such a bet.  I don't play around with stuff that I don't understand, but if you think you have some ace up your sleeve to wiggle a victory out of your pet metrics/rational, best of luck to you.

BTW, the reason I've not thought much about power consumption issues is that it never made much sense to me to mine...at least not as a money-making adventure.  Easier to just buy BTC and sit on them, and I've never regretted that decision.  I doubt that I'll buy any mining gear until the second generation of ASIC, and even then hash/power or hash/time will not be as big a consideration to me as other things.  I'll only speculate on mining as a play on a coordinated government directed attack on the Bitcoin network, and in that case the geographical and network topography considerations will be much more interesting.

[mrb]

I don't play around with stuff that I don't understand

Then don't run around shouting "scam!" on stuff you don't understand. You have the right, and it is normal for you to be suspicious about it. But as I said, preface your criticism with "I think that", or "it seems to me that".

[PuertoLibre]

I sense, that this is true:



 

[PuertoLibre]

Good News is there is [yet another] delay!

Courtesy of BFL: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/jalapeno-single-sc-support/640-shipping-january-14-not-4.html

Oh yeah...!!!! Doing a little dance....!

He will make it up by telling his customers how awesome their hardware will be...even though it is not in their hands....yep.

[fcmatt]

I think that is already pretty clear that they outright lied about the delivery date. They knew it was not possible
but wanted to get on the money train first which worked beautifully for them.

Proof? I have none except what has taken place. Anyone with common sense can see it.

But this forum does not give out scammer tags until a moderator or one of their friends lose a buck.

Uh, common sense says that lying about delivery dates is only going to hurt the reputation of the company, resulting in losses of future sales. Therefore, the prior probability of "BFL blatantly lies about delivery dates even if it would hurt their reputation" is low, while the prior probability of "BFL makes mistakes because it's their first ASIC product" is pretty high. You would therefore need strong evidence which favors them lying over them messing up before you could rationally believe that they were actually lying all along.

What evidence do we see? We see a couple of missed deadlines, which would be consistent with both possibilities (hence the probabilities don't change; lying is still "low", messing up is still "high"). What, then, has "taken place" which dramatically increased the probability of them lying all along?

If they made honest mistakes, technical mistakes, etc.. they could easily be announced and this above average
group of technical people here would understand.

But they missed so many dates now that cannot be explained by technical mistakes that one can easily assume
that in order to get a majority of the pre-order money from customers that they outright lied about their initial
delivery dates. This was purposely done to collect as much money as possible because they knew their previous
fpga sales showed just how long people would wait without asking for a refund.

Once again.. I am not saying they are not delivering a product and are an outright scam. What I am saying is
that, I THINK, they knew Oct-Nov was impossible to meet. I THINK they thought Dec-Jan was possible and that
is where the technical problems are now appearing now that they are finally moving the project along.

Evidence will probably come out at a later date showing who is correct. At this point I THINK one has to consider
the end result though. That lying or technical errors are giving the same end result. No product delivered. No demo
unit. Nothing! They really need to start being honest with what is going on and tell customers the truth. Is that
too much to ask? Not at all. And since they are not doing that I propose they have created a nest of lies that
is getting so complex that they can no longer do that. So just stall. Stall. Stall. Until they can wow people with
a working demo.

[nathanrees19]

This whole thing is a waste of time...why can't someone just make a generic ASIC that can do anything/everything?

[greyhawk]

This whole thing is a waste of time...why can't someone just make a generic ASIC that can do anything/everything?

Those exist. We call them CPUs.