First BFL ASIC!

[SkRRJyTC]

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

BFL shipped nothing.

Shipping was not part of the contingencies of the bet.

[1713913359]

1713913359

[Korbman]

Shipping was not part of the contingencies of the bet.

First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products

Turns out it is part of the bet, which is why I ended up switching my opinion in the end.

[KGambler]

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?

We agree that the bet was not a push regardless of what was meant by employee.

I don't agree with your logic that the IRS' definition of an employee should be used.  The bettors were from all over the world, the currency used was a decentralized digital currency, and betsofbitco.in is not based in the USA.  The service betsofbitco.in claims to provide is highly illegal in the USA.  It makes much more sense to me to use the English language definition of the word and to abide by the spirit of the bet rather than look for ridiculous outs through playing with semantics.

If I had a wager riding on the bet and it hinged on the word "employee", I would pay my debts.  I always pay when I lose a bet.  It's scummy to look to weasel your way out of a wager you lost.  Stooping to use of legalistic bullshit or otherwise actively going against the spirit of the bet is unethical.  I'm not a saint, but I do pay my debts.

What if the "customer" in question were a contractor who had been working full time at BFL for 10 years?  You would still insist, for some bizarre reason still not clear to me, to turning to the IRS' specific and limited definition of what constitutes an "employee"?  Remind me never to bet with you. 

Is Luke-Jr. a foreigner?  What kind of visa was/is he in the US on?  It's not even legal to come here on a visitor visa and perform work for compensation.  Does this matter for the bet?  Of course not, the IRS has nothing to do with the bet.

[SkRRJyTC]

Shipping was not part of the contingencies of the bet.

First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products

Turns out it is part of the bet, which is why I ended up switching my opinion in the end.

That was ambiguous at the time however because it also says this underneath the title:

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

Condition 1
Condition 2

That clearly excludes the title.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

BFL shipped nothing.

Shipping was not part of the contingencies of the bet.

But Josh supplying images he took with his camera at the KC lab after midnight local time (CST) and posted by Luke after 1AM his local time (EST) makes the bet true.

If there was a contest offering up a million dollar first prize to the first person supplying an image of two roosters fuckering with said images must be provided before midnight EST, any image offered up after the stated time frame would be null and void, even if this was the only stipulation of the contest rules. Hashing the semantics of what a rooster constitutes is mute.

Bottomline, I don't believe a scammer tag is warranted for any parties pertaining to this episode based on this debacle alone, nor believe Luke to be an employee of BFL, but something definitely is much more sinister afoot here.

[creativex]

Bottomline, I don't believe a scammer tag is warranted for any parties pertaining to this episode based on this debacle alone, nor believe Luke to be an employee of BFL, but something definitely is much more sinister afoot here.

That's likely to be the case wherever the merry band of crooks over at BFL are involved.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

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

This statement is closed.
Decision: Draw

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.

Editor's note: We have carefully examined both sides of the argument. First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products, therefore other bets are still open. On the other hand the conditions in the description are met. Unfortunately the statement description, as it is written, can be interpreted as complementary conditions to shipping for more clear evidence or the definition of shipping. As much as we would like to settle the bet on one side (as we would earn a significant commission) we do not think that the situation is unambiguous under these circumstances which would be very hard to foresee at the time of statement initiation. As we have been doing before, we will continue to call a draw if there is a such an ambiguity. All the bets will be refunded without any commission.

For the background see: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.0

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

Besides the outcome and dates, how is the above different than the below?

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=906

This statement is closed.
Decision: True

Butterfly Labs will NOT ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before March 1st 2013

Butterfly Labs will NOT ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before March 1st 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 March 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 70% of its advertised hashrate.

Info
Opening date: Nov. 26, 2012
Bet deadline: Feb. 15, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: March 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 11.91
Total disagree bets: 15.02
Total weighted agree bets: 3651.047
Total weighted disagree bets: 4914.607

And besides the ability to collect a commision, WHY THE FUCK IS THIS BET STILL UP?

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.



Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

Let me guess: IT'S NOT UNAMBIGUOUS!

From now on we will make it easy for you to FORESEE unambiguous listings.

[peasant]

Shipping was not part of the contingencies of the bet.

First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products

Turns out it is part of the bet, which is why I ended up switching my opinion in the end.

That was ambiguous at the time however because it also says this underneath the title:

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

Condition 1
Condition 2

That clearly excludes the title.

The conditions are there to prevent BFL from shipping a box of rocks and labeling it with ASIC DEVICE. Aside from the obvious shipping issue, the information provided was not credible. Whatever credibility Luke had before went out the window with this stunt. What a sad situation. I wish this much energy was put into actually making a product instead of using it to string people along and weasel out of bets. The most recent double penetration insult of lowering the hashrate and doubling the price is just comical. I'm more glad than ever that i jumped off this train wreck in December.  

[SkRRJyTC]

Shipping was not part of the contingencies of the bet.

First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products

Turns out it is part of the bet, which is why I ended up switching my opinion in the end.

That was ambiguous at the time however because it also says this underneath the title:

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

Condition 1
Condition 2

That clearly excludes the title.

The conditions are there to prevent BFL from shipping a box of rocks and labeling it with ASIC DEVICE. Aside from the obvious shipping issue, the information provided was not credible. Whatever credibility Luke had before went out the window with this stunt. What a sad situation. I wish this much energy was put into actually making a product instead of using it to string people along and weasel out of bets. The most recent double penetration insult of lowering the hashrate and doubling the price is just comical. I'm more glad than ever that i jumped off this train wreck in December.  

Actually the conditions are there to determine if the statement if false or not... like the first half of the sentence says.

In my mind it doesnt matter what you define shipping as, because the bet defined it for you... using the two conditions.

[RoadStress]

How do we know from the published picture that underneath that huge heatsink is an ASIC? There is actually no proof that the device in the picture is actually hashing what is on the screen, also there is no proof that the device is connected to that power meter. Also the next question is what is BFL shipping right now? Exactly nothing. So coinjedi aka BoB has no proof to sustain their opinion/decision so they fail such big time. Also someone else pointed that the performance vs power usage is almost like a FPGA so how can they decide an outcome of one bet without any proof? Such tard!

[Nemesis]

Gosh,.... ppl still talked about the bet.

Let it go, we get it, you never win a bet altho being a true gambler.... go try casino next time. I recommend SatoshiDice.

Give this thread a rest already. Goddamn it.

[Bogart]

Give this thread a rest already.

Thread discussing the bet: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165500.0

Poll thread about the bet outcome: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.0

[DataPlumber]

Might be time to lock this thread, there's been no actual new discussion for 10+ pages.

[willphase]

Might be time to lock this thread, there's been no actual new discussion for 10+ pages.

should we lock the forum too?

Will

[Bogart]

Might be time to lock this thread, there's been no actual new discussion for 10+ pages.

should we lock the forum too?

In Russia, forum locks you!

^ No actual new discussion.

[ChipGeek]

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

Since it says "April 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time", wouldn't that give them until 23:59PM on April 1?  By my estimation, they were 23 hours early.  Perhaps the person who wrote the bet INTENDED to say "March 31, 2013 end of day Eastern Time" but that's not what was written.

Disclaimer:  I had a bet on a different site hoping BFL would ship in March 2013.  I lost that bet.

[yjacket]

What I find most amusing in this whole debacle is that self proclaimed libertarians(which i am not) are calling for the use of government protections/actions to remedy their transactions with BFL. LOL, this is what the free market is.

That aside, clearly BFL lost the bet. Pedantry aside, it is ridiculous to treat a contractor in the employ of a company as though he is a customer. Stop with the IRS classifications, it is besides the point. No normal(unaffliated, or not recieving special treatment with the company) customer has recieved a product. END OF STORY

[muyuu]

What I find most amusing in this whole debacle is that self proclaimed libertarians(which i am not) are calling for the use of government protections/actions to remedy their transactions with BFL. LOL, this is what the free market is.

That aside, clearly BFL lost the bet. Pedantry aside, it is ridiculous to treat a contractor in the employ of a company as though he is a customer. Stop with the IRS classifications, it is besides the point. No normal(unaffliated, or not recieving special treatment with the company) customer has recieved a product. END OF STORY

No, we are calling for company responsibility and "contracts" to be upheld. You have a very misguided idea of libertarianism if you think it means "no rules".

[DPoS]

Are you people OK with being cuckoo ? 

They toss a prototype around like dough and say they deliver pizza

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Are you people OK with being cuckoo ? 

They toss a prototype around like dough and say they deliver pizza

So that's what the reflow oven was purchased for.