First BFL ASIC!

[Syke]

I like Luke Jr. though.   I think he is being misled, I do not think he is part of the BFL scheme.

Of course he's in on it. They're paying him $250/day.

[1714858961]

1714858961

[KGambler]

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

CROSS-POSTING

Actually, it is pretty clear that Luke is an employee of some sort (contractor, etc.).  Phinnaeus Gage dug up this quote from Luke in the larger thread concerning this scam:

Butterfly Labs, of course, knows this fact because I have been working with them since early 2012 when their FPGA products were first released.

That's a direct quote from Luke-Jr.  It's also clear that he is being compensated by BFL in various ways and that he is helping them to develop the shitty prototype he claims is a finished product.  He refused to answer questions as to the nature of this compensation.

In the same thread, Luke-Jr. also said that he talks to Josh Zerlan every day between midnight and 2:00 AM.  I really don't know why you guys keep trying to engage with Luke as if he is going to correspond with you in good faith.  It's obvious he is one of the co-conspirators of this scam.

Bogart, that is terrible what happened to you.  You have every right to be furious.  They stole a large sum of money from you.  There is no question it was theft, plain and simple.

[Matthew N. Wright]

• It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee.  He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3]  At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line.

CROSSPOSTING

Actually, it is pretty clear that Luke is an employee of some sort (contractor, etc.).  Phinnaeus Gage dug up this quote from Luke in the larger thread concerning this scam:

Butterfly Labs, of course, knows this fact because I have been working with them since early 2012 when their FPGA products were first released.

That's a direct quote from Luke-Jr.  It's also clear that he is being compensated by BFL in various ways and that he is helping them to develop the shitty prototype he claims is a finished product.  He refused to answer questions as to the nature of this compensation.

In the same thread, Luke-Jr. also said that he talks to Josh Zerlan every day between midnight and 2:00 AM.  I really don't know why you guys keep trying to engage with Luke as if he is going to correspond with you in good faith.  It's obvious he is one of the co-conspirators of this scam.

Bogart, that is terrible what happened to you.  You have every right to be furious.  They stole a large sum of money from you.  There is no question it was theft, plain and simple.

[KGambler]

Matt, what does that pic mean?  I am afraid I am not well versed in internet memes and such.



Edit:  Thanks for the explanation.  I actually guessed that could be a rabbit hole.  I figured you meant I was crazy, but I won't ask for clarification on that haha

[Matthew N. Wright]

Matt, what does that pic mean?  I am afraid I am not well versed in internet memes and such.

It was intended to suggest that we are about to go down the rabbit hole and see how deep it goes.

[Beepbop]

If a jury or appellate court ever ends up having to rule on this sort of thing, they might interpret the definition of an employee differently if the case was Luke-JR vs BFL or Commissioner IRS vs BFL instead of Bogart et al. vs betsofbitco.in Since a defition of "employee" is not included in the bet definition, the court might have to decide if the clause should encompass any person who does work for BFL, or only regular full time employees.

More likely though, they would never need to evaluate the employee clause since much simpler tests have already failed
- it was never shipped
- it was not one of the devices specified in the bet
- BFL-Josh, an undisputed employee, made most of the actual post, not Luke-JR
These points are not disputed (except by a few guys claiming that a thing sitting on a test bench in the factory has been shipped, an argument of such frivolity that might actually result in a contempt of court for the lawyer).

The harder questions of
- what time zone actually applied
- what definition of employee does the non-employee clause use, and does Luke-Jr fit this defition?
- does Luke-Jr being an employee or contractor for BFL exclude him from the defition of "customer" as in the specification of the bet
might never need to be put to a jury, since the easy undisputed questions can be ruled on the merits.

[Korbman]

Actually, it is pretty clear that Luke is an employee of some sort (contractor, etc.).

Alrighty..I've seen this posted a number of times now. You guys do realize there is a huge difference between being an employee of a company and being contracted by one..right? That just because they compensate you in some form for your work doesn't make you their employee.

Am I the only one employed who understands this?

[Delitus]

Alrighty..I've seen this posted a number of times now. You guys do realize there is a huge difference between being an employee of a company and being contracted by one..right? That just because they compensate you in some form for your work doesn't make you their employee.

Am I the only one employed who understands this?

This. Legally, an employee and a contractor are two very distinct types of relationships. Neither is a subset of another, and should not be mistaken for such.

On that note, Luke's relationship with BFL appears to be closer to the latter.

[KGambler]

Actually, it is pretty clear that Luke is an employee of some sort (contractor, etc.).

Alrighty..I've seen this posted a number of times now. You guys do realize there is a huge difference between being an employee of a company and being contracted by one..right? That just because they compensate you in some form for your work doesn't make you their employee.

Am I the only one employed who understands this?

No, I don't realize that there is a "huge difference" between "being an employee of a company and being contracted by one".

I understand where you are coming from.  You are not the only ones to have heard these very specific usages for "employee", and this is a very common mistake for people to make.  I have worked as a full time employee for American corporations and have also worked as a contractor.  I know how these terms are generally used.  I also know, due to being a native English speaker, that the way words are used in various professions or even individual companies is not the only way they are used and in some cases can even be considered incorrect usage.  In other words, it helps to sometimes assign a more exact meaning to a word AS USED in a profession, or within a legal document, etc, but that does not change nor limit the overall meaning of the word.  

Here, this should help.  It is an example of ONE definition of the English word "employee" (first one that showed up on google):

em·ploy·ee  

/emˈploi-ē/

Noun

A person employed for wages or salary, esp. a nonexecutive.

Synonyms

worker - servant - employe - clerk


Now if we were writing... say, a Federal Healthcare Law, we would make sure that if we used the term "employee" that we assigned it an exact definition.  The act of doing so would NOT change the meaning of the English word "employee" though.  Does that help?

Reading the way the bet was written, there is no reason to believe that the intent was to define "employee" as a full time, salaried worker at BFL or some such nonsense.  It's supposed to be a wager between two willing, gentleman gamblers who are going to honor the spirit of the bet, not two slimy, scumbag lawyer types who say things like "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" (for our foreign friends, that's an actual quote from arch-scumbag lawyer Bill Clinton).  Otherwise, each and every bet would have to employ "legalese", with all of those ridiculous run-on statements that attempt to cover each and every possible interpretation, eventuality, etc.

Read the bet.  Do you assume they meant to use the specific definition of employee which would preclude a guy who has worked as a contractor for BFL since 2012?  Your employer's official usage of "employee" is not the one and only "true meaning", although many people come to that conclusion concerning all sorts of English words.

My take on it is that there is no need to nitpick here.  A guy who is currently working for BFL in exchange for compensation should not be excluded from the definition of the term "employee" used in the bet terms.  Furthermore, Luke-Jr. has been doing work for BFL (at least off and on) since early 2012.  In my mind, it would be absurd to exclude him based on the use of the English word "employee", your own employer's usage notwithstanding.

[Korbman]

No, I don't realize that there is a "huge difference" between "being an employee of a company and being contracted by one".

I understand where you are coming from.  You are not the only ones to have heard these very specific usages for "employee", and this is a very common mistake for people to make.  I have worked as a full time employee for American corporations and have also worked as a contractor.  I know how these terms are generally used.  I also know, due to being a native English speaker, that the way words are used in various professions or even individual companies is not the only way they are used and in some cases can even be considered incorrect usage.  In other words, it helps to sometimes assign a more exact meaning to a word AS USED in a profession, or within a legal document, etc, but that does not change nor limit the overall meaning of the word.  

Here, this should help.  It is an example of ONE definition of the English word "employee" (first one that showed up on google):

em·ploy·ee  

/emˈploi-ē/

Noun

A person employed for wages or salary, esp. a nonexecutive.

Synonyms

worker - servant - employe - clerk

I wouldn't look to the dictionary to see what the word "employee" means.

I'll just leave this here... http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf

Focus on the law [Federal] aspect..you'll be better off in the long run.

[mokahless]

Hey Luke, have you tested this on P2Pool yet? If not, would you be willing to?

Myself and a few others have got a total of ~270GH/s on order and intend to put it all on P2Pool, barring any BFL issues like with the FPGAs.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

in re. employees/subcontractors.

When I used to own drywall companies in Nashville and Houston, all my "employees" were subcontractors. Reason? Taxes. When my dad owned a hotel in SD, he had employees until he asked me to come up to straighten out the mess after his manager ripped him off in the tune of $50K+ USD. The first thing I did was change the status of all the employees to subcontractors, an idea the off-site paid professional accountant didn't like much, but I finally had my way with her (double entendre if you know what I mean). The staff didn't mind, for now they were receiving a larger paycheck at the same hourly rate, but it was now up to them to file their taxes accordingly, something most didn't do in the first place, hence cleaning toilets in a h/motel.

Damn, now you got me missing the great fishing in SD, you bastards!

~Bruno K~

[opentoe]

It is pretty obvious everything tactic was done to try and circumvent this bet so they didn't have to pay. Having a person that has not even a proto-type that is directly affiliated with BFL shouldn't even be considered here. Conflict of interest here people. Take Luke out of the picture, which he should be, BFL clearly lost this bet without question. Why was it a draw? It is so leaning towards losing and then somehow marked a draw? Strange things going on we don't know.

[KGambler]

No, I don't realize that there is a "huge difference" between "being an employee of a company and being contracted by one".

I understand where you are coming from.  You are not the only ones to have heard these very specific usages for "employee", and this is a very common mistake for people to make.  I have worked as a full time employee for American corporations and have also worked as a contractor.  I know how these terms are generally used.  I also know, due to being a native English speaker, that the way words are used in various professions or even individual companies is not the only way they are used and in some cases can even be considered incorrect usage.  In other words, it helps to sometimes assign a more exact meaning to a word AS USED in a profession, or within a legal document, etc, but that does not change nor limit the overall meaning of the word.  

Here, this should help.  It is an example of ONE definition of the English word "employee" (first one that showed up on google):

em·ploy·ee  

/emˈploi-ē/

Noun

A person employed for wages or salary, esp. a nonexecutive.

Synonyms

worker - servant - employe - clerk

I wouldn't look to the dictionary to see what the word "employee" means.

I'll just leave this here... http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/01/art1full.pdf

Focus on the law [Federal] aspect..you'll be better off in the long run.

Why would we focus on United States Federal law in this matter?  Wouldn't it be better to just use the actual definition of the English word "employee", since this has nothing to do with United States Federal law, nor with laws in general?

[KGambler]

It is pretty obvious everything tactic was done to try and circumvent this bet so they didn't have to pay. Having a person that has not even a proto-type that is directly affiliated with BFL shouldn't even be considered here. Conflict of interest here people. Take Luke out of the picture, which he should be, BFL clearly lost this bet without question. Why was it a draw? It is so leaning towards losing and then somehow marked a draw? Strange things going on we don't know.

Yeah, it's a blatant conspiracy to cheat to win.  Luke-Jr., Josh Zerland and coinjedi are all scammers.

[KGambler]

in re. employees/subcontractors.

When I used to own drywall companies in Nashville and Houston, all my "employees" were subcontractors. Reason? Taxes. When my dad owned a hotel in SD, he had employees until he asked me to come up to straighten out the mess after his manager ripped him off in the tune of $50K+ USD. The first thing I did was change the status of all the employees to subcontractors, an idea the off-site paid professional accountant didn't like much, but I finally had my way with her (double entendre if you know what I mean). The staff didn't mind, for now they were receiving a larger paycheck at the same hourly rate, but it was now up to them to file their taxes accordingly, something most didn't do in the first place, hence cleaning toilets in a h/motel.

Damn, now you got me missing the great fishing in SD, you bastards!

~Bruno K~

Yeah, I was hired as a contractor one time and stayed at the same company for 4 years before they asked me to become an "employee".  They told me the benefits would outweigh the cut in pay, but I was young and single and already paid for my own health insurance so I knew that wasn't true.  Healthcare was a lot cheaper then too.  But if I had a family at that time it might have been worth it.

Anyway, it's quite clear that there are people called "contractors" who even the people in this thread who are hung up on an American "legal definition of employee" would call bullshit on.  BFL might have people working there for 10 years who are paid through an agency.  I guess it would be A-OK for them to be the "customer" because we are for some reason supposed to be using the American Internal Revenue Service's definition of an employee or something?

What if BFL had a policy of calling all employees "associates"?  And told their employees that they are not "employees", because that is too impersonal.  I guess then even Josh could be the customer.

It's silly to play with semantics when you can see that there was a conspiracy to steal the rightful winnings of this bet.

[kano]

Hey Luke, have you tested this on P2Pool yet? If not, would you be willing to?

Myself and a few others have got a total of ~270GH/s on order and intend to put it all on P2Pool, barring any BFL issues like with the FPGAs.

As I said over in the p2pool thread, the FPGA issues wont exist with the BFL ASIC on p2pool.
The FPGA issue is that it takes ~5s to do it's work and then only replies on completion, but p2pool LP is 10s.
ASIC at 60GH/s = ~72ms ...
Other issues? No idea. But certainly not the problem with the BFL FPGA.

[Korbman]

Why would we focus on United States Federal law in this matter?  Wouldn't it be better to just use the actual definition of the English word "employee" [...]

Last I checked, the bet was in reference to products made by ButteflyLabs, which is headquartered in Leawood, Kansas. Given that Kansas is in the United States (not sure if you knew that), the company is required to abide by all State and Federal laws..including anything regulated by the Department of Labor.

Bruno was correct. The biggest distinction between being an employee of a company and being paid by one (whatever the reason may be) is Taxes (though other aspects such as Benefits, Reimbursements, Workman's Compensation, etc can also come into play). By IRS definition alone, a subcontractor is not an employee of a company.

Simply giving another person compensation for their work does not instantly qualify them to be an employee. Don't you think using a dictionary definition in this case is a bit naïve? If you had a substantial amount of coins riding on this bet and it hinged on the word "employee", wouldn't you want to make sure it was correctly defined?

[creativex]

Don't understand the employee/contractor debate at all...seems like a sideshow.

BFL shipped nothing.

[Korbman]

Don't understand the employee/contractor debate at all...seems like a sideshow.

It is.

BFL shipped nothing.

Agreed