First BFL ASIC!

[peasant]

The credibility of the information provided is tainted. The decision should be pretty clear cut.

I don't have any stake in any of these bets, but am confused how the obvious decision hasn't been made yet.
BFL lost, and i suggest next time make the terms more clear to avoid this from happening again.

[1714167432]

1714167432

[1714167432]

1714167432

[1714167432]

1714167432

[1714167432]

1714167432

[SgtSpike]

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.

It was before April 01 in some timezones though, and a timezone wasn't specified.  Whether it met the April 1 requirement or not is kind of a toss up.

[Jutarul]

The level of denial by which the BFL business model is supported by their customers is astonishing. It's only paralleled by the level of denial citizens have in the trustworthy conduct of their political leaders and government.

Every denial which has a beginning, has an end. I see the end coming BFL.

[PuertoLibre]

Hello everyone,

As it is part of running a betting service, sometimes we have to make some decisions that will not please all of our users. This is certainly one of these cases. I agree that the bet description statements are barely satisfied but the bet is actually on "shipping" of a commercial product. To the best of our judgment the pictured device is still an internal development unit within the company premises, even if it is somehow "owned" by a non-employee. As far as I can see even BFL doesn't officially claim shipping. Under these circumstances we can not rule the statement as false. Our decision is currently not final and we will be listening your input for a few days before the final decision. Feel free to raise your opinion.

Please note that I have physically handled my unit, and BFL has it at their office now only at my own request that they keep it there for the time being.
As I understand it, BFL's "shipping" refers to their Batch 1 which has special shipping constraints. The plan to provide units to developers in advance, including the ones I paid for such as this Little Single, has been there all along, so it would be unreasonable IMO to exclude it from the bet.
I believe you should be able to verify that I have no stake in the bet (unless it's semi-anonymous or something); I have no objections if you wish to disclose that.

Which you asked them to ship to you later on....

Again, they haven't "shipped" it. It's not even complete nor fully assembled (and fully functioning and an end user product.

This bet is way too easy to call if you aren't distorting and contorting conclusions.

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

There is an easy standard to apply. You intended to have it shipped to you. You have said openly on the forum that you decline to give that tracking information publicly when it does come. So it is circumstantial that it was left in BFL's hands and they have yet to complete their official duty of shipping it to your home/residence.

Fact: It was incomplete.

Fact: It is not a retail model. (as in, a finished product)

Fact: You want it to be removed from BFL (or it's employees care) and shipped to you overseas via a courier.

Fact: BFL has not finished fulfilling your order to its intended destination. (requires shipping as of April 1st.)
------------------------

Conclusion: BFL lost the bet.

[Korbman]

Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:

• 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.

"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.

"device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" - Condition Met


Too much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is: True -- BFL has not shipped before April 1st, 2013

[PuertoLibre]

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?

No kidding. It is pretty easy to call.

Just the shipping part of the bet is pretty....darn obvious.

[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? 

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



See that word "ship". Nothing shipped.

I see exactly what it says.  The conditions say nothing about the title.  See this part

"For this statement to be false, both of the two following conditions must be met:"

In a court of law this could go either way.

[PuertoLibre]

I do not think the words product or a device could be used to describe this thing.

Does the thingy in the picture have all the parts that belong to the product or the device assembled to a formation in which those parts are in a real product or a real device? No. Therefore no product and not a device.

I also agree it has not been shipped.

Some assembly "is required". LOL.

You also need "a Luke Jr." to finish programming the software for the device. He is not included in the box with your single order.

Oh and the PCB shown is being revised as the COO of BFL has said that the device is utilizing a dangerous load within the designed parameters of the device....

This means that they have to redo the PCB (yes they admitted this) *before* shipping the final product out to customers.

See how that works?

It's good enough for Luke Jr. But not for every other customer. Who's to even say Josh isn't lying and Luke will get a different machine that consumes far less power. (a revised model that is different from the one shown in the picture at BFL labs.)

I would opinionate and say this constitutes a knowing, willing intent and intelligently thought out fraud/scheme of some kind being enacted against the betting pool.

[peasant]

Isn't there a conflict of interest when Josh took the photos apparently? If Luke handled the unit personally, why didn't he take the photos? The credibility of the information provided is clearly questionable, and when it was provided. That is an automatic loss. Good day sir, and i'm glad i'm not involved in this nonsense.

[2weiX]

I would opinionate and say this constitutes a knowing, willing intent and intelligently thought out fraud/scheme of some kind being enacted against the betting pool.

SO MUCH THIS

[rupy]

You just know it is a sad state of affairs for the gene pool .... when an individual wants a time machine to go buy FPGA's... when in reality he should be buying bit-coins.

Yeah, I know I should have invested in bitcoins "all-in" (more FPGA's as buying bitcoins and hoarding outright is all greed and not supporting the ideology at all = just like any wallstreet coorporate drone), back when I bought my FPGA's in december 2011. Oh well, at least I'm not totally BTC-less. Also it feels strange to have a large amount of "wealth" in a small easily misplace/erase/forgetpassword-able file.

Edit: Actually I don't need anyone that gives a crap!

[Vagnavs]

I cannot get over how f*cking stupid this OP post was.

Does he not realize people have been waiting close to six months for this miner?
If I was a customer I’d be real upset.  Regardless of the day..

Who cares about the bet, set that aside.  (The answer is obvious, no.)

Luke may be computer smart, but that sure wasn’t business smart.  Can you tarnish the image of BFL anymore?

[hexed]

BLAH BLAH BLAH

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

BLAH BLAH BLAH


Fact: BLAH

Fact: BLAH

Fact: BLAH

Fact: BLAH

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

Conclusion: I'm a troll.

Fact: You have been informed already that Josh/BFL has agreed that they lost the bet and will be donating 1000BTC to a charity.. multiple times

...you are beyond the definition of Ultra-troll.  I always thought BFL made a SUPER stupid mistake by hiring a little immature brat like Josh to be the frontman to their operation here.. but you are certainly the very essence of the word "troll".  How people just let you go on and on and on with your bullshit is beyond me.   It's really not hard to make BFL look stupid.. and when you try SOOOO damn hard it just makes you look like a jackass.  They should temp-ban all the people who's ignore button is as colorful as yours.

[Dalkore]

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.

I see what your saying but your example is of a flawed system (taxes).  Using that to back up a bet that clearly is using technical language to misinform the intent, isn't that in it self an admission that I am correct?   You can't have it both ways if you want to debate my comments.   I believe most people would actually side that intent matter (good faith) and technical details are usually used to take advantage over another person or group.  

I would hope you are on the side of intent when it can be measure and not details.     I operate on intent first and then make sure that matches my legal language of contracts I offer for signature.

[Dalkore]

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.

I stated this opinion as well.  People will do what people will do.

[Dalkore]

Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:

• 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.

"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.

"device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" - Condition Met


Too much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is: True -- BFL has not shipped before April 1st, 2013

Ignoring the title - Key phase, before you can evaluate this analysis, you have to agree with the posters assumption that the title is not important in determining the bet.   This title reads very specifically so either you the title should matter or not.  It does set a precedent.   I think misleading titles should be a factor if people think BFL did met the outcome requirement to affirm the bet.

[AndyRossy]

Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:

• 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.

"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.

"device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" - Condition Met


Too much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is: True -- BFL has not shipped before April 1st, 2013

Ignoring the title - Key phase, before you can evaluate this analysis, you have to agree with the posters assumption that the title is not important in determining the bet.   This title reads very specifically so either you the title should matter or not.  It does set a precedent.   I think misleading titles should be a factor if people think BFL did met the outcome requirement to affirm the bet.

The title clearly states, in bold, if it ships? Did I miss something?

Why on earth did they even post this, even BFL dont regard it as shipping or a product.

[Bogart]

technical details are usually used to take advantage over another person or group

Too true.

For example:

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1 WTC, 2 WTC, 4 WTC and 5 WTC had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein#Insurance_dispute

</tangent>

[fatpan]

195w each one,and no fans??

video card is less power and more fans

[PuertoLibre]

Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:

• 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.

"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.

"device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" - Condition Met


Too much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is: True -- BFL has not shipped before April 1st, 2013

Ignoring the title - Key phase, before you can evaluate this analysis, you have to agree with the posters assumption that the title is not important in determining the bet.   This title reads very specifically so either you the title should matter or not.  It does set a precedent.   I think misleading titles should be a factor if people think BFL did met the outcome requirement to affirm the bet.

This precedent, if it occurs, would and should turn over many bets placed at BetsofBitcoin.

Should they start this slippery slope of defining what is and isn't legitimate in the regions of a bets text (Title for example). That will lead to others claiming that previous Bets should very be turned on its head.