bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[rikur]

http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/

BFL has delivered many pre-orders already and they are within the +-10% range of the advertised 5GH/s (+-10% running variance).

Don't deal with them, they don't listen to reason and just do what they please.

EDIT:

1. 28-03-2013 BFL announced that the at least the first rounds of products they are about to deliver will use more power than previously thought: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942
2. 30-03-2013 The BitBet was created: http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/
3. 27-04-2013 The first reports of delivered products hit the internets, including https://forums.butterflylabs.com/jalapeno-single-sc-support/2088-guess-who%92s-got-two-thumbs-jalapeno%85%85-guy%85.html

There's my proof.

Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers before 1st of May 2013. Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid.

Let's break this apart a bit shall we?

Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

to their customers

• can be established to true/false
• no percentage or quantity defined, thus any quantity will result in true
• turned out to be: true

before 1st of May 2013

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "advertised" can be interpreted in many ways ie. what mediums are considered to be official advertisement
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than needed, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

performance in order to be accepted as valid.

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "performance" can be interpreted in many ways ie. Performance per Joule (GH/J), Gigahashes per secons (GH/s)
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than thought before, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

The bet should not have been allowed in the first place as per BitBets FAQ/EULA. After it was accepted, when it became clear that bettors couldn't agree what advertised performance was (see the comments about in the bet, people even here can't agree) the bet should have been cancelled.

Now if BitBet doesn't stick to their own policies and still wants to resolve the bet, "Yes" is a clear winner because it is supported by more sources and the only "No" source was negated when 28-03-2013 announcement stated that the devices will consume more power than previously advertised.

Let me know if you still think that the 28-03-2013 announcement doesn't say that the first products will perform worse in terms of GH/J and I will help you out.

[Rodyland]

http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/

BFL has delivered many pre-orders already and they are within the +-10% range of the advertised 5GH/s (+-10% running variance).

Don't deal with them, they don't listen to reason and just do what they please.

The bet didn't say GH/s, the bet said "performance".

Given that one of the "performance" features that BFL advertised was power usage, and given that power usage is rougly 6x originally advertised, I think a fair case could be argued that the bet outcome was clearly a "no".

(I'm not a bettor by the way).

[rikur]

http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/

BFL has delivered many pre-orders already and they are within the +-10% range of the advertised 5GH/s (+-10% running variance).

Don't deal with them, they don't listen to reason and just do what they please.

The bet didn't say GH/s, the bet said "performance".

Given that one of the "performance" features that BFL advertised was power usage, and given that power usage is rougly 6x originally advertised, I think a fair case could be argued that the bet outcome was clearly a "no".

(I'm not a bettor by the way).

GH/s is the only spec that has ever been advertised on the product page. Forum posts by moderators have never counted as a real statement, you can look up similar cases with google.

[Rodyland]

http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/

BFL has delivered many pre-orders already and they are within the +-10% range of the advertised 5GH/s (+-10% running variance).

Don't deal with them, they don't listen to reason and just do what they please.

The bet didn't say GH/s, the bet said "performance".

Given that one of the "performance" features that BFL advertised was power usage, and given that power usage is rougly 6x originally advertised, I think a fair case could be argued that the bet outcome was clearly a "no".

(I'm not a bettor by the way).

GH/s is the only spec that has ever been advertised on the product page. Forum posts by moderators have never counted as a real statement, you can look up similar cases with google.

Pretty sure "running off 2 USB plugs" implies power usage ~5W....

[rikur]

http://bitbet.us/bet/337/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-may-1st/

BFL has delivered many pre-orders already and they are within the +-10% range of the advertised 5GH/s (+-10% running variance).

Don't deal with them, they don't listen to reason and just do what they please.

The bet didn't say GH/s, the bet said "performance".

Given that one of the "performance" features that BFL advertised was power usage, and given that power usage is rougly 6x originally advertised, I think a fair case could be argued that the bet outcome was clearly a "no".

(I'm not a bettor by the way).

GH/s is the only spec that has ever been advertised on the product page. Forum posts by moderators have never counted as a real statement, you can look up similar cases with google.

Pretty sure "running off 2 USB plugs" implies power usage ~5W....

I don't think USB cables fall under the category of advertised performance

[Rodyland]

I don't think USB cables fall under the category of advertised performance

No, but when the only cables for the device are USB cables, that implies power performance  ~5W.

I know I don't have a copy of the original advertising/order page for the small BFL 5GH/s unit but "everyone knows" that they were advertised as running from the power of 2 USB plugs.

[rikur]

I don't think USB cables fall under the category of advertised performance

No, but when the only cables for the device are USB cables, that implies power performance  ~5W.

I know I don't have a copy of the original advertising/order page for the small BFL 5GH/s unit but "everyone knows" that they were advertised as running from the power of 2 USB plugs.

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs. Grow up and accept that you lost.

[Rodyland]

I don't think USB cables fall under the category of advertised performance

No, but when the only cables for the device are USB cables, that implies power performance  ~5W.

I know I don't have a copy of the original advertising/order page for the small BFL 5GH/s unit but "everyone knows" that they were advertised as running from the power of 2 USB plugs.

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs. Grow up and accept that you lost.

I guess this is what comes from poorly-worded bets.  I'm thinking those that lost the "won't deliver before end of March" bet (?) are feeling just as ripped off as you are now.

[Mabsark]

I would like to hear BitBet's reasoning for this decision.

Here's the earliest advertisement I could find which clearly makes no mention of power consumption, http://web.archive.org/web/20130117120834/http://www.butterflylabs.com/products/

Power consumption wasn't part of the advertised performance then and it isn't now. The only advertised performance was the hash rate. Given that the 5 GH/s units are currently shipping, then the bet most certainly should have resolved to a "yes".

I agree with you. BetBet has ripped off those who bet "yes".

[kakobrekla]

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs.

We already had a long discussion over this in #bitcoin-assets so dunno why the need to repeat. What you have read and where have you ordered has nothing to do with what they advertised. Yes the page went from 1 usb cable, to two usb cables to usb cable and a brick. But all that is irrelevant. Peformance is at least gh/s/w or else a box of gpus will do.

Grow up and accept that you lost.

Exactly.

And the FINAL advertised performance:

Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w.

Sauce:
https://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

Now go hunt BFL to pay up thier bet or get scammer tagged.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

[rikur]

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs.

We already had a long discussion over this in #bitcoin-assets so dunno why the need to repeat. Yes the page went from 1 usb cable, to two usb cables to usb cable and a brick. But all that is irrelevant. Peformance is at least gh/s/w or else a box of gpus will do.

Grow up and accept that you lost.

Exactly.

And the FINAL advertised performance:

Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w.

Sauce:
https://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

Now go hunt BFL to pay up thier bet or get scammer tagged.

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

[kakobrekla]

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

Welcome.

[Rodyland]

I knew someone else would have "hard" evidence that the power performance figures were advertised.

I agree, advertised does not only mean "on their product page on their web site".  And I don't see how an official post by BFL on their own forums could be called "speculation".

I don't know what consumer law jurisdiction you all live in, but in mine, any representations made verbally by company representatives are binding.  That these representations were captured on these forums makes them indisputable.

[Mabsark]

Sauce:
https://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
https://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

The bet was created on 30-03-2013. The date in the first image is 09-30-2012 and the date in the second image is 10-19-2012. Both of those screenshots are completely irrelevant.

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

[kakobrekla]

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

[rikur]

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

Welcome.

Contacted a lawyer, will wait for his opinion about the brief to see whether it's worth it or not.

[Mabsark]

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

[Rodyland]

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

[kakobrekla]

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

Google 'bfl specification release'. You can press 'im feelin lucky'.

[Mabsark]

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshots were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertised performance must be from an advertisement from that around that date. I want to see an advert posted from around 30-03-2013. If such an advert can't be produced, then there is no evidence to prove that such an advert exists.