bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[kakobrekla]

That's why the resolution SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE ADVERTISED SPECS as per the description:

Correct! (see: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html)

If a single employee goes guessing about it, that's a different story.

Correct again! Thats why ramblings and mumblings of Josh are discarded as irrelevant.
(I mean, apparently they are of null importance as I can see their charity bet aint getting no traction)


See, we do agree on the end!

[1713926468]

1713926468

[1713926468]

1713926468

[1713926468]

1713926468

[deadweasel]

rikur, the advertisement is on the forum post.

If it's using more than (.10*4.5) + 4.5 then it is not within 10% of the advertised performance.

[vampire]

rikur, the advertisement is on the forum post.

If it's using more than (.10*4.5) + 4.5 then it is not within 10% of the advertised performance.

The forum's post prior to the bet:

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

edit:

Here is the product page on 3/29:

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

Can you please identify the product in your post? Since I cannot.

Product page says:

Product name: 5 GH/s Bitcoin Miner - BitForce 5 GH/s SC
Processing Power: 5 GH/s (+/- 10% running variance)

No where it says that it's BitForce Jalapeno / BitForce Single SC / BitForce MiniRig SC

[MPOE-PR]

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.

Neither bet was ambiguous at the time it was allowed. The only thing that changed is that BFL found yet another way to scam. Betsofbitco.in empowered this scam (which comes as little surprise, they were in BFL's pocket anyway, as detailed other places on this forum). BitBet did not.

If tomorrow somebody makes a bet saying "Ford will deliver most 2014 Ford Fiesta preorders during 2014. Product must meet advertised performance to qualify as delivered." it will be accepted, as it's not ambiguous. In sane everyday reality Ford will do exactly that, or else issue a statement explaining they've canceled the series/failed delivery/production/whatever. If Ford were to come up with an announcement saying the 2014 Ford Fiesta is now a Husqvarna lawnmower from 2007, refurbished, then we'd be in BFL scamland.

The reason Ford doesn't do this sort of crap is simply that Ford is a company, not a scam. The reason BFL does do this sort of crap is simply that BFL is a scam, not a company. It is impractical to go around specifying everything a scammer may in time change. For instance, no delivery bet contains a rider saying that "should the product delivered have a long rubber hose affixed transforming it into a YoYo then delivery is invalid". This does not make the bet ambiguous, and even should BFL add rubberbands to their products and try to foist them from the customers' hands later the bet still wouldn't be "ambiguous". BFL would be scammy. That is all.

[Mabsark]

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.

Neither bet was ambiguous at the time it was allowed. The only thing that changed is that BFL found yet another way to scam. Betsofbitco.in empowered this scam (which comes as little surprise, they were in BFL's pocket anyway, as detailed other places on this forum). BitBet did not.

If tomorrow somebody makes a bet saying "Ford will deliver most 2014 Ford Fiesta preorders during 2014. Product must meet advertised performance to qualify as delivered." it will be accepted, as it's not ambiguous. In sane everyday reality Ford will do exactly that, or else issue a statement explaining they've canceled the series/failed delivery/production/whatever. If Ford were to come up with an announcement saying the 2014 Ford Fiesta is now a Husqvarna lawnmower from 2007, refurbished, then we'd be in BFL scamland.

The reason Ford doesn't do this sort of crap is simply that Ford is a company, not a scam. The reason BFL does do this sort of crap is simply that BFL is a scam, not a company. It is impractical to go around specifying everything a scammer may in time change. For instance, no delivery bet contains a rider saying that "should the product delivered have a long rubber hose affixed transforming it into a YoYo then delivery is invalid". This does not make the bet ambiguous, and even should BFL add rubberbands to their products and try to foist them from the customers' hands later the bet still wouldn't be "ambiguous". BFL would be scammy. That is all.

So, what you're saying is that because you're some idiotic BFL troll with a grudge, people who bet that BFL would deliver deserve to ripped off?

The bet was completely ambiguous and was resolved based on the specs of a cancelled product. The product that is shipping is not the same product that BitBet is basing it's decision on. Also, BitBet knew they were going to resolve this based on the power consumption of a product that no longer exists and never bother to inform their users, deliberately misleading them.

[Mabsark]

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

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

Too bad Jalapeños were cancelled. The ASIC that shipped was not the product you have based your decision on. The product that shipped is called a "BitForce 5 GH/s SC".

Please provide evidence of advertised power consumption for this device which was actually shipped, instead of the initial cancelled device from 2012.

Also, are you not going to address the allegation that you bet 20 BTC on "no"?

[Mabsark]

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.

So you admit that you based your decision on rumours instead of fact?

[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.

So you admit that you based your decision on rumours instead of fact?

No, but I admit you can't read.

[Mabsark]

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.

So you admit that you based your decision on rumours instead of fact?

No, but I admit you can't read.

I can read fine. Can you? If so, then explain why you're decision was based on information about the Jalapeno - a product which was cancelled and before the bet was even made, rather than information about the product which existed at the time the bet was created - the BitForce 5 GH/s SC. What was the "advertised performance" of the BitForce 5GH/s SC?

Also, while you're explaining things, explain why are you allowing ambiguous bets, which according to your policy in the FAQ are bad bets and never should have been allowed in the first place.

Oh yeah, you may also want to respond to the allegation that you bet 20 BTC on "no".

[rikur]

That's why the resolution SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE ADVERTISED SPECS as per the description:

Correct! (see: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html)

If a single employee goes guessing about it, that's a different story.

Correct again! Thats why ramblings and mumblings of Josh are discarded as irrelevant.
(I mean, apparently they are of null importance as I can see their charity bet aint getting no traction)


See, we do agree on the end!

So you just admitted that forum posts are just ramblings (BFL_Office and BFL_Josh are the same person from all we know) and they can be discarded, yet you resolved the bet on one and ignored the much more trustworthy sources ie. product pages and product FAQ which clearly state that power consumption will not be released yet.

When will you admit your bad judgement and pay out the bet for the Yes voters? I'm sure bitbet(read: you) has the BTC to do it since your policies facilitate stealing of bettor money in case of over-betting or last minute betting (the largest portion of last dividends came from these fraudulent rules, no?).

[rikur]

Here's my bet. I might have had another smaller "Yes" bet and can track it down later, but the biggest Yes bet was made by me:
03-04-13 08:50   Yes   84`489   2.00000000   1EjDg    0.00000000   1DeYV

The 5GH/s device is unfortunately not available from The Internet Archive before date April 4th:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130404210143/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html

No mention of power usage, advertised specs only include GH/s with +/- 10% variance (the bet added another +/- 10% on top of this, since the advertised specs already had the variance on it). The delivered products have been reported to have 5.6 to 5.8 GH/s performance, which is within +/- %20 of 5GH/s.

However, the official FAQ has not been changed since Jan 2013 and there they clearly state that they will not release power consumption at this time:

What is the power consumption of the SC (ASIC based) units?
We are not currently releasing power specs for the units, but they will not use more power than our current generation of products.

http://web.archive.org/web/20130117120603/http://www.butterflylabs.com/faq/

All recorded history of the Product Page for the delivered 5GH/s has no wattage mentioned, not when bet was created, not when I betted on, not when bet was closed/resolved nor now. Same goes for FAQ page.

The runner of the website admits that forum ramblings can be ignored:

That's why the resolution SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE ADVERTISED SPECS as per the description:

Correct! (see: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html)

If a single employee goes guessing about it, that's a different story.

Correct again! Thats why ramblings and mumblings of Josh are discarded as irrelevant.
(I mean, apparently they are of null importance as I can see their charity bet aint getting no traction)


See, we do agree on the end!

All in all, the +-10% extra condition on the bet is very ambiguous and against the "Bad Bet" policy of the BitBet:

"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."

Without attaching a proof of the advertised performance, the bet cannot be univocally established as true or false. Thus the bet should have been a) cancelled or b) ambiguous extra conditions ignored.

[rikur]

• BitBet accepted a "Bad Bet" that's against their policy at http://bitbet.us/faq/
• BitBet resolved the "Bad Bet" to "No" based solely on the ambiguous part of the bet, breaking their own policies twice
• BitBet based their decision on the specs of a cancelled product posted to a forum in 2012
• BitBet ignored all other posts made before the bet was created stating that those products had been cancelled and replaced, and that power consumption had changed
• BitBet has since admitted that forum speculation can be discarded
• BitBet is still running a duplicate of this May 1st "Bad Bet" dated for July 1st, which is against their policy
• BitBet will probably try to resolve the July 1st based "Bad Bet" on the same unfounded grounds, breaking their own policy once again

It has been pointed out that the biggest(20 BTC) "No" vote comes from MPEx, run by the same people running BitBet. This could be a coincidence, but could also mean that they should have disqualified themselves from betting/resolving this bet in the first place.

[mem]

It has been pointed out that the biggest(20 BTC) "No" vote comes from MPEx, run by the same people running BitBet. This could be a coincidence, but could also mean that they should have disqualified themselves from betting/resolving this bet in the first place.

This news to me, now I have another site to blacklist.

[420]

you voted on a somewhat ambiguous bet; and that's what you get

the power consumption is part of the performance

you could buy a 4.5ghash rig with a board/psu and a bunch of 7990's but it would consume a lot of power

G/hash per watt is just about the STANDARD way to measure performance of a bitcoin miner

in the best case for OP, all bets should be refunded to owners (too late now right)

[rikur]

https://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg ( http://www.reddit.com/r/BetterBitcoinBureau/comments/1dj0tq/bitbetus/ )

BitBet administrator responds to another users email with:

So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great.

Since we're doing "I would likes", here's mine : I would like to fuck your wife (due to you being an idiot). If you don't have one (which'd be unfortunate but perhaps not unexplainable) please get married asap. I expect to receive this wife of yours at the following address : 1wilfulstupidityrules1337, and let me point out to you that by failing to inform me of the vital information of whether you're married or not and also failing to provide tits in time you're now to gtfo.

[Mabsark]

you voted on a somewhat ambiguous bet; and that's what you get

the power consumption is part of the performance

you could buy a 4.5ghash rig with a board/psu and a bunch of 7990's but it would consume a lot of power

G/hash per watt is just about the STANDARD way to measure performance of a bitcoin miner

in the best case for OP, all bets should be refunded to owners (too late now right)

You're ignoring the fact that at the time the bet was made, the specification had already changed. Resolving this bet on the specs from 2012 is no different than claiming bitcoins are only worth $1 because that's how much they were at some point in 2012.

Are bitcoins worth $1? No! Was the "advertised" power consumtion 1W when the bet was made? No!

Also, I disagree with GH/W being the standard way to measure mining performance. That's a measure of mining efficiency, not performance. Look at GPUs for example, the best performers are not the most efficient, they're simply the fastest.

[Mabsark]

https://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg ( http://www.reddit.com/r/BetterBitcoinBureau/comments/1dj0tq/bitbetus/ )

BitBet administrator responds to another users email with:

So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great.

Since we're doing "I would likes", here's mine : I would like to fuck your wife (due to you being an idiot). If you don't have one (which'd be unfortunate but perhaps not unexplainable) please get married asap. I expect to receive this wife of yours at the following address : 1wilfulstupidityrules1337, and let me point out to you that by failing to inform me of the vital information of whether you're married or not and also failing to provide tits in time you're now to gtfo.

Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost.

[MPOE-PR]

It has been pointed out that the biggest(20 BTC) "No" vote comes from MPEx, run by the same people running BitBet. This could be a coincidence, but could also mean that they should have disqualified themselves from betting/resolving this bet in the first place.

This news to me, now I have another site to blacklist.

Your credibility is pretty much epsilon after the entire racism fiasco, not like anybody gives a shit what nonsense you sprout. Knock yourself out.

@OP: You can allege anything you wish. So can anyone else. For instance I could claim you're pirate. What of it?

https://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg ( http://www.reddit.com/r/BetterBitcoinBureau/comments/1dj0tq/bitbetus/ )

BitBet administrator responds to another users email with:

So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great.

Since we're doing "I would likes", here's mine : I would like to fuck your wife (due to you being an idiot). If you don't have one (which'd be unfortunate but perhaps not unexplainable) please get married asap. I expect to receive this wife of yours at the following address : 1wilfulstupidityrules1337, and let me point out to you that by failing to inform me of the vital information of whether you're married or not and also failing to provide tits in time you're now to gtfo.

It's on the blog, dummy.

Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost.

So you're the Mark Sanders muppet? Congrats, you're an interwebs celebrity nao.

PS. The claim isn't that you lost, the claim is that you're an idiot.

[Mabsark]

It's on the blog, dummy.

Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost.

So you're the Mark Sanders muppet? Congrats, you're an interwebs celebrity nao.

Of course that's me. If you've only just figured that out, you must have the mental capabilities of a 5 year old. And if you think I'm going to become an Internet celebrity because you posted an email to your shitty blog, then you must be seriously delusional as well.

PS. The claim isn't that you lost, the claim is that you're an idiot.

Then why did you write, "So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great."?

Now instead of posting my name as if that means something and patting yourself on the head, why don't you address the points being made which show that you're nothing but a scummy piece of shit who conspired to rip off your users?

I'm glad you posted that email, it just goes to show how unprofessional you and your scammy outfits are.

[greyhawk]

Look at all these people swimming with sharks and then complaining when they're bitten.

"You didn't tell me these sharks had teeth. I demand an immediate detoothing."