First BFL ASIC!

[Dalkore]

Disclosure:  I do not have any stake in the outcome of the "BFL Ships ASIC before April 1st" bet.


With that said, from what I have read and the details about the unit not being in the possession of Luke-Jr, it being on the test bench and Luke not being with the unit.  Also mentioning that BFL likely violated their own 1/3 shipping plan, shows that this was more of a STUNTto win a bet and not a real shipment.


Verdict: Bet is lost


Sidenote:  It is promising to finally see this type of progress from BFL and we should not berate them so harshly when they really gave people information they have been craving.   I know they are late and have done many objectionable tactics, but you can't burn them on the stake for this one.  It is good to see that information released.  

I think the general consensus is that they lost the bet, but people are fighting over what is the reason why the lost the bet. For those that have not actually read the text of the bet:
"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's true that none of those conditions mention anything about shipping, but the "Before April 1" line stands out. In the absence of a time zone specification, I'd go with UTC. It's up to the BoB to figure out what the timezone is and then sift through the remaining points.

Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013 - This is the title.  It is quite specific.  If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths.  Even comparisons from the representative of the company (BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled.  By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about.   What more do you really need?  Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong.  I am sorry to say it but it is true.   

Am I wrong on this?

Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording?  Please think about the previous statement before just responding.  Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that?  I can't really see how that was not the case.  This is my argument. 


Disclosure: I did not bet on this claim

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Time Zone in bold: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701

Betting deadline is past. This statement is awaiting decision.

Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013
This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

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.

Info
Opening date: Sept. 23, 2012
Bet deadline: March 4, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: April 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 213.82
Total disagree bets: 334.53
Total weighted agree bets: 233413.233
Total weighted disagree bets: 605930.295

[crazyates]

This "shipping" by BFL is NOT comparable to what was shipped by Avalon.

You mean when Avalon "shipped", and people went 3 weeks without even seeing a single unit in customer hands? They were shipping like 10 a day, and then taking 4 weeks to clear customs.

[BadBear]

This "shipping" by BFL is NOT comparable to what was shipped by Avalon.

You mean when Avalon "shipped", and people went 3 weeks without even seeing a single unit in customer hands? They were shipping like 10 a day, and then taking 4 weeks to clear customs.

Wait, are you using shipped in scare quotes to attack Avalon (who has shipped), in defense of BFL? That's some funny shit man.

[Gator-hex]

The BFL ASIC never left the BFL Lab therefor it was never "shipped".  

Avalons where photographed being unpacked from their shipping containers.

[Korbman]

Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013 - This is the title.  It is quite specific.  If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths.  Even comparisons from the representative of the company (BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled.  By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about.   What more do you really need?  Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong.  I am sorry to say it but it is true.  

Am I wrong on this?

You are not wrong, and I understand what you're saying..but ..

Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording?

No. In contracts or other formal agreements the content takes precedence over the intent. One example I usually think about when it comes to something like this is Taxes. The government's intent is for you to pay your share and they write this massive tax code to cover just about everything they can think of. But thanks to their wording, there are loopholes that allow for people to keep their money if they put it in the right places.

Something well written thoroughly transfers intent into technical wording, which the author of this bet clearly did not do properly. As a result, we have to debate about something that should be pretty straightforward

Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that?

I would imagine so. But I also imagine there are people who looked through the details of the bet and agreed to it based on that instead. Anyway, it should all be taken into context..title and content.


EDIT: I never bet on this, so I have nothing to gain or lose here.

[Micon]

The BFL ASIC never left the BFL Lab therefor it was never "shipped".  

Avalons where photographed being unpacked from their shipping containers.

Really at a loss for words here.  

really coinjedi?

Can't call this one yet?  too close in your eyes?  

I will not be placing any more bets at betsofbitco.in seeing how you can be 100% correct with your wagers and have the payout in question.

I can't bet like that.  This is such a simple matter, the fact that coinjedi let JZ even briefly pause his decision on this statement is cause for concern.  Imagine if something was actually, really close!  how easily could coinjedi be manipulated one way or the other?

[Micon]

If this goes on another 24 hrs I'm going to go on the offensive, personally.  It appears someone with a large pro-BFL bet has gotten coinjedi's ear on this matter, and he is still "debating" in the face of overwhelming evidence for the correct decision:

The BFL ASIC never left the BFL Lab therefor it was never "shipped".   

Avalons where photographed being unpacked from their shipping containers.

BFL doesn't have a working device.

Have you actually received any correspondence from BFL backers claiming to have won the bet?  That would be sad and pathetic.

I guess you have two options.

1.  pay the obvious winners

2.  pay the losers or cancel the bet, thus destroying the credibility your business relies upon

What a dilemma.

What can be seen in the OP is NOT a finished product, nothing that will be shipped to customers.
When Avalon shipped the first two devices, those were the FINISHED products. The same products which were later received by "ordinary" customers.

This "shipping" by BFL is NOT comparable to what was shipped by Avalon.

People saying BFL has shipped should as well request to remove Matthew's  scammer tag then.

sorry a prototype is NOT shipped.

If I produce 10 boards with crap hanging off them and screws holding them to a table , then supply them to developers  that does not count as shipping.

totally done with betsofbitco.in.  This is very damaging for their business, and it pisses me off to see one of the more respected, older btc gambling sites making decisions (or indecision) that are so clearly influenced by the obvious losing side of the statement.

[SgtSpike]

Ok, people know I am a BFL supporter and have a bet against Micon as to when they will ship, etc.  But I'll say that I can't see any way in which BFL shipped a device before April 1, or any way that this bets of bitcoin bet could conclude otherwise.

Even if you use the technical wording of the bet and do not include the text of the title as being part of the requirement (which I certainly would), some conditions of the bet were not met.

Now, where I disagree with Micon is that coinjedi is in the wrong here.  I think it is absolutely prudent and necessary to take time and gather all the facts before making a final decision involving tens of thousands of dollars (this is a several hundred BTC bet, is it not?).  So, I applaud coinjedi for not rushing to a decision in the event of a close call, which this certainly is.  On the surface, it seems obvious to most people what the outcome should be, but because there is disagreement, coinjedi is right to take his time in deciding the proper result of the bet.

If he somehow concludes that BFL DID ship a unit before April 1st, then and only then would I lose faith in betsofbitco.in.

[Syke]

Something well written thoroughly transfers intent into technical wording, which the author of this bet clearly did not do properly. As a result, we have to debate about something that should be pretty straightforward

There's nothing to debate about. You must consider all of the text of the contract. The title is part of the contract. You cannot ignore it. The title says "shipped", and BFL didn't "ship" anything. Case closed.

[maqifrnswa]

totally done with betsofbitco.in.  This is very damaging for their business, and it pisses me off to see one of the more respected, older btc gambling sites making decisions (or indecision) that are so clearly influenced by the obvious losing side of the statement.

I think betsofbitco.in is now debating setting a precedent: what constitutes acontract, the intent of the bet or what is written in the terms? Does the title count as terms? On time based bets, what determines the time? In the lack of clarity of definitions, does betsofbitco.in have to stand in and interpret? For example, betsofbitco.in now has to define what "shipping," "device," "by April 1," and "post on a forum" means in order to set a precedence. You can say "but it is obvious," and it may be "obvious" that they lost the "spirit" of the bet - but now betsofbitco.in has to decide whether they want to be in the business of deciphering what the "spirit" of contracts is.

Is the title part of the contract? This may be "obvious" to many, but it is never defined - BoB has to declare that it is, and this can be a time to do it. They just as easily can say, "only the terms in the text count" - either way they are about to declare one or the other.

"shipping" If i hand it to you and you hand it back, is that "shipping"? It legally counts as delivery but is that in the spirit of the bet (and who decides what the spirit of the bet means?)

"device" does a working, but unpackaged and not brought into a fully realizable form, device count?

"by April 1" what time zone? Do we care what the contract end time is? The bet says it ends April 1 at end of day Eastern time. What is end of day? 5 pm? Midnight? Does it even matter because it should have been March 31 at midnight UTC?

"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" What if the time stamp on the photo is before April 1 but the post is after? What if they post credible photos of the device and it is not in their possession?

Should BoB even be answering these questions?


As "obvious" as this appears, there may be just enough ambiguity for BoB to not want to set precedence. Now you know why lawyers write the way the do, they can only use precise language which has been proven to stand up in court. This is an example of case law that betsofbitco.in needs to establish.

[tbd]

I can't believe this is actually being debated.

Unofficial BFL News ‏@BFL_News 2h
* Chips count per device may change, depending on results this week

Unofficial BFL News ‏@BFL_News 2h
* New boards testing this week.  (...)  I'd guess shipping next week.

[smracer]

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 seems to me that both of the conditions were met.  Where in the conditions does it say anything about shipping? 

[Minor Miner]

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 seems to me that both of the conditions were met.  Where in the conditions does it say anything about shipping? 

Seems to me that it fails here: "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."

There were NO PHOTOs of the device they are selling.  There was a photo of a test board.   I believe if you go to their website you can see the fancy boxes they are packing the guts in.  I do NOT see any photos of the thing that "luke jr" (no Josh Zerlan according to the photo info) took pictures of.   Can you send me to the place on the website where I can buy that "thing"?

[Ekaros]

"and report its hashrate."

Was the hashrate reported? Does single picture of setup with this info on screen count as report?

It's quite hard to say what are the exact terms and was the statement true even if conditions are barely met.

At the least community will learn to word these bets better.

[2weiX]

vote: NOT SHIPPED

[Syke]

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 seems to me that both of the conditions were met.  Where in the conditions does it say anything about shipping? 

Did you see the giant bolded text at the top of the page?



See that word "ship". Nothing shipped.

[ninjarobot]

1) The fact that BFL seems to care more about winning a bet than delivering a solid product to customers speaks volumes.

2) The way they tried to win this bet speaks volumes about the dishonest way they conduct their business. It is borderline scammy.

I'm sorry, but as far as BFL customers are concerned this is a FAIL on two counts. Regardless if BFL wins this silly bet or not. Get a clue folks and set your priorities straight.

[Rampion]

1) The fact that BFL seems to care more about winning a bet than delivering a solid product to customers speaks volumes.

2) The way they tried to win this bet speaks volumes about the dishonest way they conduct their business. It is borderline scammy.

I'm sorry, but as far as BFL customers are concerned this is a FAIL on two counts. Regardless if BFL wins this silly bet or not. Get a clue folks and set your priorities straight.

This.

[atomicdog]

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 seems to me that both of the conditions were met.  Where in the conditions does it say anything about shipping? 

The post was made at April 01, 2013, 05:36:32 AM so therefore it was not made before April 1st.