bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[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.

I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshot were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertise performance must be from an advertisement from that date on, not from before 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.

If there is no evidence to prove that power-consumption claims were altered or explicitly removed between 2012 and end of March 2013, then the assumption must be that claims made in 2012 were still valid at the end of March 2013.  The presumption is that the bet was made on the most recent information available at the time - and thus far, the most recent information that has been presented here shows that power consumption claims were indeed made.

Thus anyone claiming that there were no or altered power consumption claims at the end of March 2013 must prove that some time after those images were taken, but before the end of March 2013, the power consumption claims were either retracted or altered by BFL.

Seems quite straightforward to me - and I don't have any financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this bet.

[1714966906]

1714966906

[1714966906]

1714966906

[1714966906]

1714966906

[rikur]

bitbet.us probably chose No since they had the biggest No vote on the bet. Conflict of interest?

Website : BitBet.us

Owner : Matic "kakobrekla" Kočevar and Mircea "mircea_popescu" Popescu

31. So did you do it all by yourself ?

Not really. While Mircea Popescu has been managing the project and putting up the capital since the very beginning..

20BTC No bet just happens to to come from MPEX that was founded by the very same person that runs bitbet.us and is here defending the No votes. Hmm you say? Here's the transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/01d55664107a02ebb68fe0f80f85d61ce41c1be0191e11294d1031d7cd8ebdf2

You can see it yourself by cliking on the 20BTC no bet on the bitbet.us link in the original post.

[Rodyland]

bitbet.us probably chose No since they had the biggest No vote on the bet. Conflict of interest?

Website : BitBet.us

Owner : Matic "kakobrekla" Kočevar and Mircea "mircea_popescu" Popescu

31. So did you do it all by yourself ?

Not really. While Mircea Popescu has been managing the project and putting up the capital since the very beginning..

20BTC No bet just happens to to come from MPEX that was founded by the very same person that runs bitbet.us and is here defending the No votes. Hmm you say? Here's the transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/01d55664107a02ebb68fe0f80f85d61ce41c1be0191e11294d1031d7cd8ebdf2

You can see it yourself by cliking on the 20BTC no bet on the bitbet.us link in the original post.

Just because the bet didn't go the way you think it should have, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. 

Doesn't mean there isn't either.   

But if you're going to try to argue that your position holds merit, you could at least provide some supporting evidence.  Nothing you've posted here in support of your assertion even comes close to the evidence posted that disproves your position.

[Mabsark]

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'.

That takes me to a forum post dated 09-29-2012. The specs have changed completely since then. That's no different than me claiming bitcoins are worth $1 because some forum post from 2012 says they were. It's utter nonsense.

Also, why didn't you alter the bet to say that power consumption was included if you knew you were going to resolve it that way? You've misled your users and you're coming up with nonsensical reasons to justify your position.

Such an ambiguous bet never should have been allowed in the first place. I also see that there's another bet going for July 1st and that's also the same ambiguous nonsense.

These bets are nothing but a scam.

[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 screenshot were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertise performance must be from an advertisement from that date on, not from before 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.

If there is no evidence to prove that power-consumption claims were altered or explicitly removed between 2012 and end of March 2013, then the assumption must be that claims made in 2012 were still valid at the end of March 2013.  The presumption is that the bet was made on the most recent information available at the time - and thus far, the most recent information that has been presented here shows that power consumption claims were indeed made.

Thus anyone claiming that there were no or altered power consumption claims at the end of March 2013 must prove that some time after those images were taken, but before the end of March 2013, the power consumption claims were either retracted or altered by BFL.

Seems quite straightforward to me - and I don't have any financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this bet.

There is proof though. https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1512-power-consumption-early-shipping-bfl-units-per-hash.html

As you can see, that was posted 03-29-2013.

[Mabsark]

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.

I wasn't part of that discussion and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So, your admitting to conspiring to rip off your users by withholding vital information. We knew since at least 29-03-2013 (a day before the bet was made) that power consumption would be around 7.5W per chip. Do you think anyone would have bet "yes" if you stated that the "advertised performance" included power consumption from a forum post form 2012? And what about the claim that you actually bet on "no"? This whole affair stinks or corruption.

Also, you seriously need to go through all your existing bets and get rid of the ambiguous ones or shit like this is going to keep happening.

[Mabsark]

From BitBet's FAQ:

What bets are BadBets?

First and foremost, statements that can not univocally be established as either true or false at a certain point in the future are BadBets and as such unacceptable on BitBet. For instance, "God Exists" is unacceptable, because it can never be established as either true or false. "God will change Coke to Pepsi on August 19th, 2013" is also unacceptable, also because it can never be established as true or false (even if the change of Coke to Pepsi could allegedly be established).

Now lets examine the bet:

BFL will deliver ASIC devices before May 1st

That can easily be resolved to true or false, so that okay.

Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers before 1st of May 2013.

That's pretty much just a rehash of the title and can also easily be resolves to true or false.

Both the above statements resolve to true.

Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid.

This statement is totally ambiguous and cannot be resolved to true or false. It relies on the subjective definition of "advertised performance". Therefore, this is a bad bet according to BitBet's FAQ and should never have been allowed in the first place.

Here are the facts:

• BitBet allowed a bad bet to made.
• BitBet intentionally misled it users by conspiring in an IRC channel to decide to include power consumption in the bet, then never bother to make that vital information available to its users.
• The owners chose to base their decision on initial specs posted to a forum in 2012 and ignored all other posts made before the bet was created stating that power consumption had changed.
• It has been claimed that BitBet owners allegedly bet 20 BTC on a "no" result.
• BitBet resolved the bet to "no".

The conclusion is obvious, these guys are definitely a bunch of scammers.

[mem]

Code:

Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid.

No scam, they failed to meet the power specs they quoted (big surprise, BFL lied again).

[Frizz23]

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.

You are butthurt, OK, but please stop the public whining!

Neither has BFL delivered the promised performance (1GH/s per Watt), nor have they delivered "many pre-orders already".

From the thousands and thousands of pre-orders, how many does BFL claim to have shipped? Maybe around 30.
How many of those did not go to devs, magazines and other members of the family&friends program? Maybe around 10.
How many of those 10 have actually been delivered to pre-order customers? Maybe 5.

Anyway. I would neither call 5, nor 10 nor 30 "many pre-orders" given the total number of orders in the thousands.

[mem]

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.

You are butthurt, OK, but please stop the public whining!

Neither has BFL delivered the promised performance (1GH/s per Watt), nor have they delivered "many pre-orders already".

From the thousands and thousands of pre-orders, how many does BFL claim to have shipped? Maybe around 30.
How many of those did not go to devs, magazines and other members of the family&friends program? Maybe around 10.
How many of those 10 have actually been delivered to pre-order customers? Maybe 5.

Anyway. I would neither call 5, nor 10 nor 30 "many pre-orders" given the total number of orders in the thousands.

Hey Frizz

Yet another BFL related event turned to shit..... Its like Inaba is the Midas of shit.

[Mabsark]

Code:

Devices must be in scope of at least +-10% of advertised performance in order to be accepted as valid.

No scam, they failed to meet the power specs they quoted (big surprise, BFL lied again).

Yeah, just ignore the fact that power specs were never mentioned in the bet.
Just ignore the fact that this bet was resolved on obsolete information posted to a forum in 2012.
Just ignore the fact that updated information had been posted to the exact same forum before the bet was created stating that the initial power consumption specs couldn't be met.
Just ignore the fact that BitBet is clearly ignoring its own BadBet policy by allowing ambiguous bets.

[Mabsark]

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.

You are butthurt, OK, but please stop the public whining!

Neither has BFL delivered the promised performance (1GH/s per Watt), nor have they delivered "many pre-orders already".

From the thousands and thousands of pre-orders, how many does BFL claim to have shipped? Maybe around 30.
How many of those did not go to devs, magazines and other members of the family&friends program? Maybe around 10.
How many of those 10 have actually been delivered to pre-order customers? Maybe 5.

Anyway. I would neither call 5, nor 10 nor 30 "many pre-orders" given the total number of orders in the thousands.

Of course he's "butthurt", he just got ripped off by a scammer.

[mem]

Yeah, just ignore the fact that power specs were never mentioned in the bet.

Right now you are choosing to ignore that power consumption is a factor of performance for an electrical device.

Just ignore the fact that this bet was resolved on obsolete information posted to a forum in 2012.

Linky ?

Just ignore the fact that updated information had been posted to the exact same forum before the bet was created stating that the initial power consumption specs couldn't be met.

So ? That makes you a fool for betting in favour of the bet then.

Just ignore the fact that BitBet is clearly ignoring its own BadBet policy by allowing ambiguous bets.

Here I am with you 100%, wagering sites should not allow ambiguous bets, players should also not be placing wagers on ambiguous bets either. Betsofbitco.in is also in a similair position for allowing an ambiguous bet to be placed then nullifying it later due to being ambigious.

What I would have expected is all the quoted performance factors affecting the wagers outcome should have been itemized in the description.

[Mabsark]

Yeah, just ignore the fact that power specs were never mentioned in the bet.

Right now you are choosing to ignore that power consumption is a factor of performance for an electrical device.

Just ignore the fact that this bet was resolved on obsolete information posted to a forum in 2012.

Linky ?

See kakobrekla's initial response. kakobrekla claims that "the FINAL advertised performance" was "Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w" and posted two screenshots as the source. That's clearly false.

Just ignore the fact that updated information had been posted to the exact same forum before the bet was created stating that the initial power consumption specs couldn't be met.

So ? That makes you a fool for betting in favour of the bet then.

Actually, I didn't bet on this.

[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.

You are butthurt, OK, but please stop the public whining!

Neither has BFL delivered the promised performance (1GH/s per Watt), nor have they delivered "many pre-orders already".

From the thousands and thousands of pre-orders, how many does BFL claim to have shipped? Maybe around 30.
How many of those did not go to devs, magazines and other members of the family&friends program? Maybe around 10.
How many of those 10 have actually been delivered to pre-order customers? Maybe 5.

Anyway. I would neither call 5, nor 10 nor 30 "many pre-orders" given the total number of orders in the thousands.

The world is full of crooks and they make me mad. Here's a quote from the FAQ of http://butterflylabs.com/faq/:

Q: What is the power consumption of the Bitforce SC (ASIC based) units?
A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units.

Product page has no power consumption specification and FAQ says that BFL is not releasing any power specs for the units. I don't care what people have guessed on forums, the advertising clearly never had power consumption as part of the specs.

[kakobrekla]

A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units.

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

[rikur]

A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units.

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

Erm, the bet was made in 2013 and even before the bet BFL rumored in their forums about higher power usage (see previous posts). Rumored, like they rumored about power usage in the posts you're so keen on quoting.

[kakobrekla]

A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units.

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

Erm, the bet was made in 2013 and even before the bet BFL rumored in their forums about higher power usage (see previous posts). Rumored, like they rumored about power usage in the posts you're so keen on quoting.

Does the bet go "+-10% of the rumored performance"? Thought so.

[vampire]

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.

So the question is if they advertised the power consumption on 30-03-2013 (the day when bet was started):


Product page from 3/29: http://web.archive.org/web/20130411110627/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html

Size: 100.32 mm x 100.32 mm x 17.1 mm
Processing Power: 5 GH/s (+/- 10% running variance)
Included accessory: Two (2) USB Cables


Plug the USB cable into a host computer and run the supplied software. Additional Bitforce SC products can be added to the chain via a USB hub for linear performance multiplication with no overhead cost. Each additional unit is auto-configured and folded into the workforce without any user intervention required.


Warranty: This unit’s system board has a lifetime warranty from manufacture defect or component failure.


Order up to 4 - 5 GH/s bitcoin miners and pay the same standard, flat shipping price.


Pre-order Terms: Bitforce SC (ASIC) products are in final stage development with initial shipping scheduled for the last half of April 2013. Products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 2 months or more after order. All sales are final.

Rikur has a point here, there is nothing about the power on the product page.

Also Josh's posts here does imply that BFL will have issues with power on 3/28:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

edit:

Personally I think that the two usb cable doesn't imply any power usage, the description is confusing: Provide two cables, but plug only one into the computer?

Plug the USB cable into a host computer and run the supplied software.

[rikur]

A: We are not currently releasing power specs for the units.

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

Erm, the bet was made in 2013 and even before the bet BFL rumored in their forums about higher power usage (see previous posts). Rumored, like they rumored about power usage in the posts you're so keen on quoting.

Does the bet go "+-10% of the rumored performance"? Thought so.

That's why the resolution SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE ADVERTISED SPECS as per the description: product page and FAQ say that power usage will not be disclosed yet. If a single employee goes guessing about it, that's a different story.