[Archive] BFL trolling museum

[nathanrees19]

4. Your original product was a fraud, in the sense it wasn't something you developed, it was a high end, end of life product you bought on the cheap and sanded off. This was eventually discovered and publicly documented, but mum's the word from your side. This leaving to the side the fact it was late and out of spec - maybe you got lucky at the last minute and otherwise your scam would have ended last year, who knows.

False.  Provide proof or evidence to the contrary.

Fully documented by ngzhang.

None of the mining FPGA vendors "developed" their own FPGAs. They all designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream. BFL designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream.

How exactly does using recycled FPGAs make it a "fraud"?

You may be confusing it with the practice of sanding off a chip and printing a different and wrong label on it in order to falsely sell it as a different or new chip, similar to taking a 1GB sd card but labelling it as 16GB for sale. You're effectively complaining about (the equivalent of) an android phone, sold as having 16GB capacity, having a real 16GB card inside it, but with the label sanded off so that you can't see that it's a Sandisk, not a Kingston, even though the brand of the card was never mentioned in the phone specs. Oh noes! Fraud!

If the BFL single was called "xc6slx150 computation board" and had a chip with xc6slx150 printed on it (but was the Altera chip), then yes, that would be fraud.

[1714959642]

1714959642

[1714959642]

1714959642

[1714959642]

1714959642

[nathanrees19]

I just went back and skimmed some posts about the BFL single....stopped when the deja vu kicked in, which was pretty much immediately. Exactly the same "omg it's a scam", "omg they will never deliver"...

[BitSyncom]

None of the mining FPGA vendors "developed" their own FPGAs. They all designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream. BFL designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream.

How exactly does using recycled FPGAs make it a "fraud"?

You may be confusing it with the practice of sanding off a chip and printing a different and wrong label on it in order to falsely sell it as a different or new chip, similar to taking a 1GB sd card but labelling it as 16GB for sale. You're effectively complaining about (the equivalent of) an android phone, sold as having 16GB capacity, having a real 16GB card inside it, but with the label sanded off so that you can't see that it's a Sandisk, not a Kingston, even though the brand of the card was never mentioned in the phone specs. Oh noes! Fraud!

If the BFL single was called "xc6slx150 computation board" and had a chip with xc6slx150 printed on it (but was the Altera chip), then yes, that would be fraud.

You are missing the part where their advertised specification and released product was different. this has nothing to do with what chip they used. They did not meet their initial advertised speed of power consumption, which is why many, including knowledgeable people comment it on being a scam or a fraud initially.

I have no doubt BFL will eventually ship, although I highly doubt they will meet their 1W per 1GH/s rate though. History will repeat themselves, people just don't learn. Time will tell.

[BR0KK]

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Maybe he's not in the picture of what they are dooing .....Not everybody is a finance or computer expert ... Words can do magic some times :/

[MPOE-PR]

If the BFL single was called "xc6slx150 computation board" and had a chip with xc6slx150 printed on it (but was the Altera chip), then yes, that would be fraud.

For any arbitrary values of "xc6slx150 computation board" such as "BFL Single" and "xc6slx150" such as "BFL"?

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

If you call that sad display logic, simple or otherwise, I'll just call you an idiot and we can part ways.

[nathanrees19]

this has nothing to do with what chip they used.

Exactly, but someone quoted a post solely about the chip as evidence of "fraud". If they had intended to say "the specs were downgraded" then they should just say that, not (effectively) "herp derp chip fraud".

I have no doubt BFL will eventually ship, although I highly doubt they will meet their 1W per 1GH/s rate though. History will repeat themselves, people just don't learn. Time will tell.

Agreed.

[nathanrees19]

If the BFL single was called "xc6slx150 computation board" and had a chip with xc6slx150 printed on it (but was the Altera chip), then yes, that would be fraud.

For any arbitrary values of "xc6slx150 computation board" such as "BFL Single" and "xc6slx150" such as "BFL"?

0/10

[PuertoLibre]

None of the mining FPGA vendors "developed" their own FPGAs. They all designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream. BFL designed boards, picked an FPGA and developed a bitstream.

How exactly does using recycled FPGAs make it a "fraud"?

You may be confusing it with the practice of sanding off a chip and printing a different and wrong label on it in order to falsely sell it as a different or new chip, similar to taking a 1GB sd card but labelling it as 16GB for sale. You're effectively complaining about (the equivalent of) an android phone, sold as having 16GB capacity, having a real 16GB card inside it, but with the label sanded off so that you can't see that it's a Sandisk, not a Kingston, even though the brand of the card was never mentioned in the phone specs. Oh noes! Fraud!

If the BFL single was called "xc6slx150 computation board" and had a chip with xc6slx150 printed on it (but was the Altera chip), then yes, that would be fraud.

You are missing the part where their advertised specification and released product was different. this has nothing to do with what chip they used. They did not meet their initial advertised speed of power consumption, which is why many, including knowledgeable people comment it on being a scam or a fraud initially.

I have no doubt BFL will eventually ship, although I highly doubt they will meet their 1W per 1GH/s rate though. History will repeat themselves, people just don't learn. Time will tell.

Speaking of which, are you guys meeting your targets?

Did the chip packer confirm things are looking good on your end? (Within spec)

[Syke]

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Maybe he's not in the picture of what they are dooing .....Not everybody is a finance or computer expert ... Words can do magic some times :/

Don't let the fact get in the way of your guessing.

http://codinginmysleep.com/interview-with-sonny-vleisides/

Sonny is an upper-level executive within the company

An "upper-level executive" would definitely be involved directly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110868.0

With regards to BFL, I'm proud to have played a role in it's start up and focus on the current products, but I am not a majority owner.

Clearly he is directly involved. He's even an owner, just not a "majority" owner. No one has more control over the company than it's owners.

[Korbman]

Clearly he is directly involved. He's even an owner, just not a "majority" owner. No one has more control over the company than it's owners.

False. Large companies are often run by a Board of Directors, which have full control over the company and its direction. The owner may be a part of said Board, and may still be the official "owner", but they no longer have full control. The key here would be to obtain a controlling interest through 51% ownership of any company stock (public or private).

[BR0KK]

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Maybe he's not in the picture of what they are dooing .....Not everybody is a finance or computer expert ... Words can do magic some times :/

Don't let the fact get in the way of your guessing.

http://codinginmysleep.com/interview-with-sonny-vleisides/

Sonny is an upper-level executive within the company

An "upper-level executive" would definitely be involved directly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110868.0

With regards to BFL, I'm proud to have played a role in it's start up and focus on the current products, but I am not a majority owner.

Clearly he is directly involved. He's even an owner, just not a "majority" owner. No one has more control over the company than it's owners.

My Statement was for the Parole Officer I know that he (sunny) is a shady person.

[mobodick]

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

If you call that sad display logic, simple or otherwise, I'll just call you an idiot and we can part ways.

Masterfull attempt at dealing with tough questions!
Just call them idiots and turn around.
Brilliant and very convincing.
Bravo, I say, Bravo!

[Syke]

False. Large companies are often run by a Board of Directors, which have full control over the company and its direction. The owner may be a part of said Board, and may still be the official "owner", but they no longer have full control. The key here would be to obtain a controlling interest through 51% ownership of any company stock (public or private).

BFL is anything but a "large company". It is a privately owned small company. Sonny is a "high-level executive" and company owner. The odds of him having no control is about the same as finding a Bitcoin block with a cpu-miner.

[elux]

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Err... You quite sure about that? Was anyone ever in touch?

Three quick questions:
2: What is the contact information of his parole probation officer?

2: You have got to be joking, right?

From what I can tell, the probation period is over. (September, 15 2010 + 26 months = November 2012.)

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

While being in clear violation of his SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE for most of the 26 month duration of that supervised release.

[Bogart]

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

[CoinHoarder]

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

How do you think he got the funding to start this endeavor?

He probably only found out about bitcoin when he was looking for a place to stash the millions he scammed from his last business...

Now he has a kush scam setup going... all money is immediately in bitcoins meaning you don't have to go through the trouble of money laundering.

/speculation

[bitmar]

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

He paid for this -  26 months - ~1 million $ per mounth - Viva America !!!  
Am going to USA to start a ASIC (scam) business , I'll be rich

[elux]

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

Here's why:

All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3), restitution is not ordered because (1) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable [3663A(c)(3)(A)]; and

(2) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process [3663A(c)(3)(B)].

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: It is further ordered defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment fee of $100, which is due immediately to the Clerk of the Court.

[bitmar]

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

What about the ~$20m he scammed from his mail fraud victims that was never recovered?  I doubt that's been repaid.

Here's why:

All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3), restitution is not ordered because (1) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable [3663A(c)(3)(A)]; and

(2) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process [3663A(c)(3)(B)].

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: It is further ordered defendant shall pay to the United States a special assessment fee of $100, which is due immediately to the Clerk of the Court.

LOL 
So, according to U.S. law, BFL also can steal money with impunity.
If you  robbed someone and steal his money you're screwed, but if you find a lot of stupid people who give you money (of their own accord) you can sleep peacefully Just make sure to transfer all the money to the bank somewhere in the world,  or the best way ,convert $ into BTC.

[SgtSpike]

@ MPOE-PR, sense BFL's CEO's parole/probation officer knows about his activities from multiple sources, how come his parole officer hasn't violated his parole and sent him back to jail? Could it be because there is no violation of parole? MPOE-PR simple logic doesn't seam to be your strong suit, right?

Err... You quite sure about that? Was anyone ever in touch?

Three quick questions:
2: What is the contact information of his parole probation officer?

2: You have got to be joking, right?

From what I can tell, the probation period is over. (September, 15 2010 + 26 months = November 2012.)

Sonny is now a free man who has repaid his debts to society.

While being in clear violation of his SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE for most of the 26 month duration of that supervised release.

It's only a violation if he didn't contact his probation officer about this, and no one has proven that he hasn't contacted his probation officer about this.