First BFL ASIC!

[muyuu]

It's a bit like a lottery scam, where you sell tickets, publicly draw numbers, and instead of paying the winner the grand prize, you just refund his ticket.

You mean, declare no winner and refund every ticket.

The problem with the lottery analogy is that there is no "loser" (prize comes from the tickets).

In this case there is a loser and the house could be corrupt and take a bribe from him.

Everyone who doesn't have the winning numbers is a loser.

Small losers who don't have enough incentive to bribe the house.

Unlike the BFL lot 

[1713997382]

1713997382

[1713997382]

1713997382

[1713997382]

1713997382

[1713997382]

1713997382

[Syke]

Although... I'd have expected a competent judge to contact me and ask my opinion on whether the device is capable of the 27 Gh/s required, in case my current results were the result of software issues. But it's immaterial, since as best as I can tell so far, I'm getting the most performance out of it that it can handle.

75% of 40 GH/s is 30 GH/s. The device didn't come close to the required speed for the bet. The bet was clearly won.

It was a 30GH unit (Little SC),not the 40 or 60GH unit..............................

Not an option. The terms of the bet clearly specified which products.

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

There is no "Little Single" included in the bet. The bet was clearly won. BoB called it a draw incorrectly. That is unless they are sending 24 GH/s units to all Jalapeno orders.

[robamichael]

Collusion?

[yxt]

Error: Username 1CdcYVP4T4hjHwt353pEnGHrigeDLvuvZL not found in database. Please try again later. If this issue persists, please report it to the pool operator.

already blown?   

[DPoS]

The real winners are the those early BFL customers somehow flipping vaporware on eBay for $8000

true money for nothing

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Although... I'd have expected a competent judge to contact me and ask my opinion on whether the device is capable of the 27 Gh/s required, in case my current results were the result of software issues. But it's immaterial, since as best as I can tell so far, I'm getting the most performance out of it that it can handle.

75% of 40 GH/s is 30 GH/s. The device didn't come close to the required speed for the bet. The bet was clearly won.

It was a 30GH unit (Little SC),not the 40 or 60GH unit..............................

LittleSC was not mentioned in the bet or announced when the bet was created.

3 products were mentioned in the yahoo artical libked from the bet.

And wouldn't the bet have been worded that way so that no other product later introduce can meet the requirements in the bet?

[Frankie Delaney]

The real winners are the those early BFL customers somehow flipping vaporware on eBay for $8000

true money for nothing

If you ordered in the first month, you'd have to sell a single for about 25 grand right now to break even on the bitcoin exchange rate difference. The bitcoins used to buy the first $30,000 minirigs would be worth $618,750 right now. The bitcoins spent on that one $120,000 4-minirig order would be worth almost 2.5 million dollars.

[Logik]

- Wrong hash rate
- Not physically delivered
- Photographs were taken by a BFL employee

It's not even close to being ambiguous. None of the conditions were met.

Plus, one purpose of bets is to be used as a hedge. For example, I hold a mining stock which is heavily exposed to BFL so I hedge with 'will not ship' bets. What good is a betting website for that purpose if I still suffer the downside (mining stock value still down because they have no BFL products yet) with no upside (betting profit)? Won't be using that site anymore.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?

[Syke]

And wouldn't the bet have been worded that way so that no other product later introduce can meet the requirements in the bet?

Yes, it most cleary was:

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

[Phinnaeus Gage]

And wouldn't the bet have been worded that way so that no other product later introduce can meet the requirements in the bet?

Yes, it most cleary was:

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

That's exactly what I was saying, but I may have worded it incorrectly. It made sense when I wrote it and proofread it twice, but now seems odd. Time for a couple 750mg Vicodins. Which reminds me, I need to reorder. Wait! I can't. My coins are tied up for 90 days or (insert infinity symbol here). (joking about the V's and SR)

[keatonatron]

I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".

I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!

In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.

If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.

People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?

[Luke-Jr]

I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?

I talk to Josh on a regular basis, usually between midnight and 2 AM.
I don't see the relevance of your question, or why the pictures seem at all a surprise.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".

I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!

In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.

If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.

People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?

Timestamps can be ambiguous, therefore every single bet on BoB should be considered a draw when they expire for this has set a precedence.

I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?

I talk to Josh on a regular basis, usually between midnight and 2 AM.
I don't see the relevance of your question, or why the pictures seem at all a surprise.

Thank you, Luke, for at least answering question.

Later, bud.

~Bruno K~

[Fiyasko]

Oh my gosh i was blinded by hope, It could totally just be a freaking FPGA mini rig

[SgtSpike]

I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".

I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!

In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.

If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.

People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?

It was still March 31 in some parts of the world, and a timezone wasn't specified as part of the bet.

[Xian01]

I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?

I talk to Josh on a regular basis, usually between midnight and 2 AM.
I don't see the relevance of your question, or why the pictures seem at all a surprise.

Probably because shortly before the time the photos were posted, you made a comment along the lines of "I'll post a photo of my BFL product soon", when really it was Josh posting a photo of a prototype they had in their lab that you were SSH'd into.

That reeks of collusion, duplicity, and dishonesty.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Up until I found the following quote, I would have argued that Luke would not be considered an employee of BFL. But now I'm not too sure. I probably still lean toward the not side of the fence, but you guys figure it out.

Why, OH WHY, Are they choosing BFGminer? Seriously ugggh, Its just a clone of CGMiner T^T

No, you have it backward. cgminer is just a clone of BFGMiner as far as FPGAs/drivers are concerned.
Butterfly Labs, of course, knows this fact because I have been working with them since early 2012 when their FPGA products were first released.
On the other hand, the troll duo (Con & Kano) were strictly GPU mining until much later, when they decided to fork my code instead of continuing to update in a collaborative way.

[thebaron]

I have a feeling that this is just a cleverly orchestrated transaction. Keeping people arguing about the bet vs. when/if they are actually going to deliver.

[keatonatron]

I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".

I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!

In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.

If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.

People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?

It was still March 31 in some parts of the world, and a timezone wasn't specified as part of the bet.

The BoB site states that all deadline times are US EST.

Although!!

I just realize a technical problem: The description says "Before April 1st" yet the settings for the statement are set for end of day, April 1st. It's obvious the submitter thought choosing April 1st would mean 12 am April first, when it actually means 11:59pm April 1st. I guess that is enough of a technicality to allow the losers to argue for a draw  

Still, others have posted multiple reasons why the statement is false, and I haven't yet seen any compelling reasons why it's true...?

E: Small correction, I bet "Agree". I was sure they would not ship before April 1.