First BFL ASIC!

[Fjordbit]

Final Verdicted: BFL failed.
Major:

• Didn't meet deadline (just)
• Potentially an employee is the source of said "evidence"

Minor:

• Non credible photos (taken by some other than poster - BFL [JOSH] )
• Advertised hashrate is in question.

My personal feeling is that the deadline wasn't met, but I acknowledge others that say it is ambiguous.

There is no way an employer/employee relationship has been established. This has been pretty thoroughly covered.

The hashrate is not in question. The other unit in the pictures isn't plugged in.

The "credibility" of the photos is a little subjective here. I personally feel the intent of the phrasing is to discount any photoshopped images. It does not refer to who took the photos as long as people believe that the photos are real. The secondary evidence of Luke-Jr's mining rate graph gives credibility to the photos. I also feel that credibility can be established post hoc.

[Syke]

For this bet to be won tho, there needs to be a shipping label and/or tracking number.

There is, but I'd prefer not to give the trolls my personal info.

Then where are the posted photos taken by yourself at your delivery location? Re-posting photos of devices at the factory doesn't count.

I just love all the debate about an April Fools post. Truly the mark of a good fooling.

[mobodick]

For this bet to be won tho, there needs to be a shipping label and/or tracking number.

There is, but I'd prefer not to give the trolls my personal info.

Also "The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate."  Which product was your order for Luke?  A Single or a Little Single?

This is my Little Single.

I guess luke has a bet and is being desperate?

I am not a party to any bets. (although I probably would be if I knew whether it was legal in Kansas)

Another thing that bugs me is that Luke was put into service by BFL a while back so he could work on their product. During this time he stayed in a hotel. If the money for the hotel was payed out of BFLs pocket i see this as a compensation for his involvement with the product and that would make him a BFL employee by my definition.

Your definition is irrelevant. An employee means "one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level" in English. The legal definition is more specific, and makes it completely clear that I am not an employee.

Yeah, and i use this definition:

'An "employee" is defined as "a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions" or "an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible) . . . who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service." Ramos v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24378 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2009)  '

(http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/employee/)

So if your expenses were payed in exchange for specific work done at the request of BFL and you were not a temp at BFL you could be seen as an employee. But actually more likely as a contractor.

In any case, by your definition i'd say you were an employee as well because you were employed to do some work for BFL in exchange for a financial compensation  and your position was lower than executive level.

[mobodick]

There is no way an employer/employee relationship has been established. This has been pretty thoroughly covered.

Where?

[aTg]

Let's make a couple of technical questions:
1. There are ways to improve performance of the asic from the mining program? in this case to be a non-programmable hardware to do apart from BFGMiner fecuencia vary?
2. How many cores contains single PCB ?

[PuertoLibre]

25GH for a mini single which draws 179W, almost the same power consumption as avalon, but I heard there is a wafer by wafer difference in chip's power consumption, could be lower than that number, but 120W at least. So 240W for a full single running at 60GH, with that amount of heat, open rig is the only choice  

So indeed that is a shipped product, everyone have to run it like that, and there is a turbo blow fan on the left side of the heatsink, not in the photo  

Does this meant the Mini-rig will require a wind tunnel to operate properly?

[Luke-Jr]

For this bet to be won tho, there needs to be a shipping label and/or tracking number.

There is, but I'd prefer not to give the trolls my personal info.

Then where are the posted photos taken by yourself at your delivery location? Re-posting photos of devices at the factory doesn't count.

Why not? I'll update my forum avatar at some point, but don't feel like cleaning up my desk right now.

Another thing that bugs me is that Luke was put into service by BFL a while back so he could work on their product. During this time he stayed in a hotel. If the money for the hotel was payed out of BFLs pocket i see this as a compensation for his involvement with the product and that would make him a BFL employee by my definition.

Your definition is irrelevant. An employee means "one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level" in English. The legal definition is more specific, and makes it completely clear that I am not an employee.

Yeah, and i use this definition:

'An "employee" is defined as "a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions" or "an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible) . . . who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service." Ramos v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24378 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2009)  '

(http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/employee/)

So if your expenses were payed in exchange for specific work done at the request of BFL and you were not a temp at BFL you could be seen as an employee. But actually more likely as a contractor.

In any case, by your definition i'd say you were an employee as well because you were employed to do some work for BFL in exchange for a financial compensation  and your position was lower than executive level.

"Excepted service" in all definitions I can find refers to a class of people working for the federal government.

"An employer has the right to control an employee. It is important to determine whether the company had the right to direct and control the workers not only as to the results desired, but also as to the details, manner and means by which the results were accomplished. If the company had the right to supervise and control such details of the work peformed, and the manner and means by which the results were to be accomplished, an employer-employee relationship would be indicated. On the other hand, the absence of supervision and control by the company would support a finding that the workers were independent contractors and not employees. Whether or not such control was exercised is not the determining factor, it is the right to control which is key."

This makes it clear I am not an employee.

[PuertoLibre]

This customer cannot be a BFL employee.

Exactly, Luke-Jr is not an employee. You'll see that I referenced this requirement in my second to last post.

Wait, he gets flown out to do programming for BFL and he is not an employee?

What is his order number by the way? I am assuming Luke ordered his units at the very start of the line....right?

Whats that? It is part of his compensation scheme? Wait...since when do customers get compensated when they [probably] haven't paid cash or BTC for an order? (Called a transaction of goods)

Sounds to me like he is an employee or contracted labor.

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

Don't think so?

Can he arrive at BFL labs, say he doesn't want to program anything and take his order home with him [like a customer can]? No...?

Then he is an employee performing a job for compensation. Simple theory right?

[Fiyasko]

Could we stop talking about shipping and bets, Its friggin april 1st.
Whats important is that (if the image is correct) The BFL ASIC produces ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO HARDWARE FAULTS in 43 minutes
122 Hardware Faults in 43minutes is NOT a good sign!!

[Bogart]

For this bet to be won tho, there needs to be a shipping label and/or tracking number.

There is

Last night on IRC didn't you say:

02:44:30 a_meteorite: did you go to BFL HQ or was it shipped? assuming you can reveal that..
02:54:38 Luke-Jr: a_meteorite: I've physically touched it, but I've left it at BFL for the time being.

[gdbutler]

Josh has already stated in the shoutbox on BFL's forum that they WILL be donating 1000 btc to charity. Not sure what all the debate is about here...

[miter_myles]

There was another bet regarding "shipping" before end of March I believe..

[gdbutler]

There was another bet regarding "shipping" before end of March I believe..

Oh ok, didn't realize there were 2 bets.

[willphase]

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

[mobodick]

For this bet to be won tho, there needs to be a shipping label and/or tracking number.

There is, but I'd prefer not to give the trolls my personal info.

Then where are the posted photos taken by yourself at your delivery location? Re-posting photos of devices at the factory doesn't count.

Why not? I'll update my forum avatar at some point, but don't feel like cleaning up my desk right now.

Another thing that bugs me is that Luke was put into service by BFL a while back so he could work on their product. During this time he stayed in a hotel. If the money for the hotel was payed out of BFLs pocket i see this as a compensation for his involvement with the product and that would make him a BFL employee by my definition.

Your definition is irrelevant. An employee means "one employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below the executive level" in English. The legal definition is more specific, and makes it completely clear that I am not an employee.

Yeah, and i use this definition:

'An "employee" is defined as "a preference eligible in the excepted service who has completed 1 year of current continuous service in the same or similar positions" or "an individual in the excepted service (other than a preference eligible) . . . who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service." Ramos v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24378 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2009)  '

(http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/employee/)

So if your expenses were payed in exchange for specific work done at the request of BFL and you were not a temp at BFL you could be seen as an employee. But actually more likely as a contractor.

In any case, by your definition i'd say you were an employee as well because you were employed to do some work for BFL in exchange for a financial compensation  and your position was lower than executive level.

"Excepted service" in all definitions I can find refers to a class of people working for the federal government.

"An employer has the right to control an employee. It is important to determine whether the company had the right to direct and control the workers not only as to the results desired, but also as to the details, manner and means by which the results were accomplished. If the company had the right to supervise and control such details of the work peformed, and the manner and means by which the results were to be accomplished, an employer-employee relationship would be indicated. On the other hand, the absence of supervision and control by the company would support a finding that the workers were independent contractors and not employees. Whether or not such control was exercised is not the determining factor, it is the right to control which is key."

This makes it clear I am not an employee.

On the contrary.
If BFL would give you specifications to work against and expect you to implement them then that could establish an employer-employee relationship between you.
The question is, would BFL still pay for your expenses if you wouldn't do the work for them in a way they specified.

But i have to admit that i'm not from the US so my knowledge of these types of things is limited.
Probably also the reason i read "excepted" as "expected".

But do i understand clearly that in the US you're not an employee if you haven't worked at the place for at least one year?
Brutal.  

[DataPlumber]

Could we stop talking about shipping and bets, Its friggin april 1st.
Whats important is that (if the image is correct) The BFL ASIC produces ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO HARDWARE FAULTS in 43 minutes
122 Hardware Faults in 43minutes is NOT a good sign!!

If the device were running at a nice round number like 1GH/s, that'd be:

122 / (1,000,000,000 * 60 * 43)

0.000000004729% error rate.

I think I could tolerate that.

Edit: math.

[yxt]

Hashrate Average   Weighted Shares
3 hours   13.25 Gh/s   33325 
22.5 minutes   1,845.25 Mh/s   580
256 seconds   26.32 Gh/s   1569
128 seconds   28.74 Gh/s   857

[AndyRossy]

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?

[Rampion]

I did not gamble on this but come on guys, I don't understand how it is possible that some of you are considering this as "BFL is shipping"

What a joke

[bonker]

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?

Agreed to the above. Plus the fact that this isn't a real ASIC