bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[Mabsark]

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."

She deserved to be raped officer, she was wearing a short skirt!

[greyhawk]

Oh good, the rape card.

Can't wait for the "bitbet deciding against me is as bad as the holocaust" 'argument'.

[Sukrim]

Betting on something that does NOT clarify in clear numbers what "advertised rates" etc. mean is just looking for trouble...

Just clarify before betting what this "advertised performance" (e.g. on bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/) is in clear numbers, if they don't want to do that, well don't bet or prepare to fund the "option emporium" of our unfriendly neighbourhood romanian.
Also please be aware that "+/- 10%" also means that if suddenly performance is much BETTER than expected, you can still loose!

[MPOE-PR]

Just clarify before betting what this "advertised performance" (e.g. on bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/) is in clear numbers, if they don't want to do that, well don't bet or prepare to fund the "option emporium" of our unfriendly neighbourhood romanian.
Also please be aware that "+/- 10%" also means that if suddenly performance is much BETTER than expected, you can still loose!

Actually, plenty of people have asked, plenty of people have been told exactly what it means.

(This is how everyone* knows that the +-10% A. is only there to match the - at the time - official BFL release and B. is construed in favor of BFL, which is to say no more wattage, no less hashing. You couldn't lose the bet if they made a chip that's less energy intensive, faster or both).

*everyone who bothered to ask, of course.

[Sukrim]

Actually, plenty of people have asked, plenty of people have been told exactly what it means.

The I'd recommend to put the exact numbers (and a link to the announcement that is referenced for the "advertised performance") in the bet description or at least having a way to clarify arising issues like this directly in the bet's description (e.g. "Editor's note: To clarify, performance means X GH/s per Y Watts, the advertised products when opening this bet were Product 1: ... Product 2: ... and Product 3: ...").

[MPOE-PR]

The I'd recommend to put the exact numbers (and a link to the announcement that is referenced for the "advertised performance") in the bet description or at least having a way to clarify arising issues like this directly in the bet's description (e.g. "Editor's note: To clarify, performance means X GH/s per Y Watts, the advertised products when opening this bet were Product 1: ... Product 2: ... and Product 3: ...").

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.

This isn't how it works, scam makes statements that contradict previous statements and everyone downstream suddenly scrambles to modify, clarify and so forth. Onus is on BFL.

That aside, next time someone makes a bet with BFL crap yes they'll have to specify all this.

[sgbett]

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.

I have nothing to do with bitbet.us or MPOE. I'm just "some guy on the internet". I am 17BGf71aGDBHjoLNugGt94GgsJv8mQf6QZ

I have a single preorder, I was worried it was a scam, my bet was a hedge against that. Before I made the bet I hopped onto IRC to ask about what was meant by "advertised performance" and was told it was what was in place at the time of the bet the logic being [or they could just change the spec and ship anything] i cant remember the exact words.

What you are doing, rikur, is arguing semantics. You remind me of spineless defense lawyers trying to get people to acquit rapists because the girl "didn't explicitly say no to the sex act, and it doesn't say anything about kicking and screaming meaning no in the lawbook". That lawyer is trying to go by the letter of the law instead of following the spirit of the law. The one thing this world is not short of is people who ignore the spirit of the law, because it serves their own ends. You are making the world a worse place by being like that. Just stop it.

This bet was made in good faith. BFL were selling a product that set itself above others based on the fact you got a buttload of hash rate in a tiny energy efficient box.

Hat's off to BFL for delivering a buttload of hash. However, the box is bigger and it uses a bunch more power. As a customer I am disappointed that they didn't hit their power claims. *Where* they made those claims is irrelevant, they did make those claims, and I ordered based on those claims.

The thing is I could now go them and be all arsey about that, and demand a refund yadayada

I'm not going to do that for two reasons:

1. it still looks like a good product (as opposed to the great one I ordered)
2. (most importantly) they had the common decency to keep everyone updated, tell us all about what was going on, be honest about the power consumption issues they were facing and that they weren't going to hit spec

There is nothing I can say to sway you from your incessant campaign against bitbet, MPOE, anyone else who disagrees with you and now me. If nothing else though I feel it only fair that the baseless accusation that he is betting on his own site is put to rest.

Of course in your head I'm only saying this because I won. The best thing about that is, at least that is in your head.

Remember folks gamble responsibly - don't bet what you can't afford to lose

[MPOE-PR]

I have nothing to do with bitbet.us or MPOE. I'm just "some guy on the internet". I am 17BGf71aGDBHjoLNugGt94GgsJv8mQf6QZ

I have a single preorder, I was worried it was a scam, my bet was a hedge against that. Before I made the bet I hopped onto IRC to ask about what was meant by "advertised performance" and was told it was what was in place at the time of the bet the logic being [or they could just change the spec and ship anything] i cant remember the exact words.

What you are doing, rikur, is arguing semantics. You remind me of spineless defense lawyers trying to get people to acquit rapists because the girl "didn't explicitly say no to the sex act, and it doesn't say anything about kicking and screaming meaning no in the lawbook". That lawyer is trying to go by the letter of the law instead of following the spirit of the law. The one thing this world is not short of is people who ignore the spirit of the law, because it serves their own ends. You are making the world a worse place by being like that. Just stop it.

This bet was made in good faith. BFL were selling a product that set itself above others based on the fact you got a buttload of hash rate in a tiny energy efficient box.

Hat's off to BFL for delivering a buttload of hash. However, the box is bigger and it uses a bunch more power. As a customer I am disappointed that they didn't hit their power claims. *Where* they made those claims is irrelevant, they did make those claims, and I ordered based on those claims.

The thing is I could now go them and be all arsey about that, and demand a refund yadayada

I'm not going to do that for two reasons:

1. it still looks like a good product (as opposed to the great one I ordered)
2. (most importantly) they had the common decency to keep everyone updated, tell us all about what was going on, be honest about the power consumption issues they were facing and that they weren't going to hit spec

There is nothing I can say to sway you from your incessant campaign against bitbet, MPOE, anyone else who disagrees with you and now me. If nothing else though I feel it only fair that the baseless accusation that he is betting on his own site is put to rest.

Of course in your head I'm only saying this because I won. The best thing about that is, at least that is in your head.

Remember folks gamble responsibly - don't bet what you can't afford to lose

Pretty cool of you stepping up like that. Props.

[rikur]

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.

I have nothing to do with bitbet.us or MPOE. I'm just "some guy on the internet". I am 17BGf71aGDBHjoLNugGt94GgsJv8mQf6QZ

I have a single preorder, I was worried it was a scam, my bet was a hedge against that. Before I made the bet I hopped onto IRC to ask about what was meant by "advertised performance" and was told it was what was in place at the time of the bet the logic being [or they could just change the spec and ship anything] i cant remember the exact words.

What you are doing, rikur, is arguing semantics. You remind me of spineless defense lawyers trying to get people to acquit rapists because the girl "didn't explicitly say no to the sex act, and it doesn't say anything about kicking and screaming meaning no in the lawbook". That lawyer is trying to go by the letter of the law instead of following the spirit of the law. The one thing this world is not short of is people who ignore the spirit of the law, because it serves their own ends. You are making the world a worse place by being like that. Just stop it.

This bet was made in good faith. BFL were selling a product that set itself above others based on the fact you got a buttload of hash rate in a tiny energy efficient box.

Hat's off to BFL for delivering a buttload of hash. However, the box is bigger and it uses a bunch more power. As a customer I am disappointed that they didn't hit their power claims. *Where* they made those claims is irrelevant, they did make those claims, and I ordered based on those claims.

The thing is I could now go them and be all arsey about that, and demand a refund yadayada

I'm not going to do that for two reasons:

1. it still looks like a good product (as opposed to the great one I ordered)
2. (most importantly) they had the common decency to keep everyone updated, tell us all about what was going on, be honest about the power consumption issues they were facing and that they weren't going to hit spec

There is nothing I can say to sway you from your incessant campaign against bitbet, MPOE, anyone else who disagrees with you and now me. If nothing else though I feel it only fair that the baseless accusation that he is betting on his own site is put to rest.

Of course in your head I'm only saying this because I won. The best thing about that is, at least that is in your head.

Remember folks gamble responsibly - don't bet what you can't afford to lose

Congrats on the win, however I still disagree on how the resolution was done on a specific 2012 forum posts, completely ignoring later (made before the bet) which contradict it.

- A "Bad Bet" should not have been allowed in the first place
- Before the bet was closed and it became clear that the bet is a "Bad Bet", it should have been cancelled and funds returned
- If still resolved, it should have been resolved on the non-ambiguous parts only (+10% advertised performance is the only ambiguous part of the bet, everything else can be univocally be resolved to true or false)

But no, the "Bad Bet" was allowed against their FAQ and resolved against their FAQ.

[rikur]

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.

[sgbett]

Pretty cool of you stepping up like that. Props.

You seem to do a lot with Bitcoin and you often have strong opinions which could be seen by many as flamebait but if they look deeper they will see you often have a pretty solid basis for whatever you are claiming. I like that. So when people start making BS accusations the least I can do is set them straight.

[rikur]

Pretty cool of you stepping up like that. Props.

You seem to do a lot with Bitcoin and you often have strong opinions which could be seen by many as flamebait but if they look deeper they will see you often have a pretty solid basis for whatever you are claiming. I like that. So when people start making BS accusations the least I can do is set them straight.

If you looked deeper into this, you'd see that it was not on a solid basis at all.

[MPOE-PR]

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.

No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread.

[rikur]

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.

No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread.

I haven't seen a single good answer in this thread that would answer the above questions, feel free to point me to one. When I'm less busy, I will draft a timetable of events / posts and to make it more clear what happened.

[sgbett]

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.

No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread.

I haven't seen a single good answer in this thread that would answer the above questions, feel free to point me to one. When I'm less busy, I will draft a timetable of events / posts and to make it more clear what happened.

You keep presenting your opinion of things as inherent properties of those things.

You keep qualifying things.

You do not see anyone else's point of view other than your own.

The difference is that I, and no doubt others here,  could argue *your* side better than you are.

Only if you fully understand both sides can you draw a rational conclusion. If you refuse to understand the 'resolve to no' side, then of course you will inevitably continue to think that it should have been yes.

Why do I need to look deeper? What is it that you think your timetable is going to show that hasn't already been re-hashed a million times. You're whole case is based on your opinion of what constitutes advertising - to which you have added arbitrary conditions. Your opinion of what constitutes performance - to which you have applied conditions.

The decision that was made was unconditional, rational and in the circumstances fair on balance. All things being equal anyone without a vested interest would likely have drawn the same conclusion because it was clear that what was promised was not what was delivered, however close it may have been in some selected aspects.

I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but I am UK and we have various legislative bodies that deal with this (under the auspice of the office of fair trading), and a large number of statutory instruments to protect consumers from the predatory practices of companies who misrepresent products in order to deceive and potentially defraud customers.

The key thing here is that this body even exists, the implication being that this kind of practice would occur if it was unregulated. Legal precedent is quite clear with regards false advertising. If a company made claims about its product on its website (note ther is no qualification that it must be on a 'product page' or other specific medium, that those claims could quite easily be used as evidence against them in a court of law were that company to then deliver a product that did not live up to those claims. There isn't a solicitor (lawyer) in the land that would be stupid enough to try and argue otherwise.

Thats pretty much what has happened here. BFL said our products do XYZ on their website. The product page only listed X and Y (though Z was still implied at the time the bit was created). On the same day the bet was created we got the first 'rumours' they were having trouble with power, but the attitude was very much that of - we are working to get it down. (This would imply that they had some target? no?) as april rolled around there was more chatter of we are getting the power down. Then things started to change, products started being rejigged, the BFL line was we aren't going to hit 1w but it wont be loads more. Talk of changing up the factor, PSU cooling being needed on the previously passively cooled jalapeño.

At this point my thought process was as follows: "Hmm, looks like they aren't gonna hit spec, and there is a bet here that says as much, why I can't lose... I wonder what spec means *jumps on IRC, has suspecions concerned* hmm think ill plunk 20 down on that..."

That kind of chatter made it pretty clear they weren't gonna hit the performance they'd promised (sure they would hit one of the metrics, and if you were to arbitrarily decide that one metric was important and another wasn't - as you have - then you could say they hit performance. Why would you do that though, its the equivalent to lying by omission.) BFL even said it.

So when they virtua-shipped a device end of march to luke-jr (does that even count), then as april progressed they irl-shipped a few boxes to others (uh oh 6x power consumption though and is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?), and by the end of april they had gone crazy and got double digits out the door. They satisfied the 'shipped' and 'asic' part, but, as I said on the bet discussion at the time:

"All these ASICs and none of 'em to spec. So sad."

So there is an answer. Whether you deem it "good" well, thats just your opinion 'innit.

[rikur]

I striked away the 20 BTC bet talks. The issue of a very unprofessional bet resolving still exists.

BitBet, could you please explain why you resolved the bet on the ambiguous part of the bet and why you chose questionable sources(and only one part of the story) instead of the actual product pages and their FAQ? I'd like to get clear on this.

No, you'd just like to pretend like the answers aren't there. This sort of bullshit does not work. Read the thread.

I haven't seen a single good answer in this thread that would answer the above questions, feel free to point me to one. When I'm less busy, I will draft a timetable of events / posts and to make it more clear what happened.

You keep presenting your opinion of things as inherent properties of those things.

You keep qualifying things.

You do not see anyone else's point of view other than your own.

The difference is that I, and no doubt others here,  could argue *your* side better than you are.

Only if you fully understand both sides can you draw a rational conclusion. If you refuse to understand the 'resolve to no' side, then of course you will inevitably continue to think that it should have been yes.

Why do I need to look deeper? What is it that you think your timetable is going to show that hasn't already been re-hashed a million times. You're whole case is based on your opinion of what constitutes advertising - to which you have added arbitrary conditions. Your opinion of what constitutes performance - to which you have applied conditions.

The decision that was made was unconditional, rational and in the circumstances fair on balance. All things being equal anyone without a vested interest would likely have drawn the same conclusion because it was clear that what was promised was not what was delivered, however close it may have been in some selected aspects.

I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but I am UK and we have various legislative bodies that deal with this (under the auspice of the office of fair trading), and a large number of statutory instruments to protect consumers from the predatory practices of companies who misrepresent products in order to deceive and potentially defraud customers.

The key thing here is that this body even exists, the implication being that this kind of practice would occur if it was unregulated. Legal precedent is quite clear with regards false advertising. If a company made claims about its product on its website (note ther is no qualification that it must be on a 'product page' or other specific medium, that those claims could quite easily be used as evidence against them in a court of law were that company to then deliver a product that did not live up to those claims. There isn't a solicitor (lawyer) in the land that would be stupid enough to try and argue otherwise.

Thats pretty much what has happened here. BFL said our products do XYZ on their website. The product page only listed X and Y (though Z was still implied at the time the bit was created). On the same day the bet was created we got the first 'rumours' they were having trouble with power, but the attitude was very much that of - we are working to get it down. (This would imply that they had some target? no?) as april rolled around there was more chatter of we are getting the power down. Then things started to change, products started being rejigged, the BFL line was we aren't going to hit 1w but it wont be loads more. Talk of changing up the factor, PSU cooling being needed on the previously passively cooled jalapeño.

At this point my thought process was as follows: "Hmm, looks like they aren't gonna hit spec, and there is a bet here that says as much, why I can't lose... I wonder what spec means *jumps on IRC, has suspecions concerned* hmm think ill plunk 20 down on that..."

That kind of chatter made it pretty clear they weren't gonna hit the performance they'd promised (sure they would hit one of the metrics, and if you were to arbitrarily decide that one metric was important and another wasn't - as you have - then you could say they hit performance. Why would you do that though, its the equivalent to lying by omission.) BFL even said it.

So when they virtua-shipped a device end of march to luke-jr (does that even count), then as april progressed they irl-shipped a few boxes to others (uh oh 6x power consumption though and is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?), and by the end of april they had gone crazy and got double digits out the door. They satisfied the 'shipped' and 'asic' part, but, as I said on the bet discussion at the time:

"All these ASICs and none of 'em to spec. So sad."

So there is an answer. Whether you deem it "good" well, thats just your opinion 'innit.

So you clearly didn't look deeper into the issue. BitBet already said that forum ramblings can be discarded (leaving product page and FAQ as the best sources of information). But if you really want to look at their forum posts.. The bet was resolved based on this old post posted on 29-09-2012:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html

However, newer posts right prior to the creation of the bet point out that BFL cannot meet their earlier power usage speculation, were posted  on 29-03-2013:

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

Now the bet was created on 30-03-2013, thus the latest "advertised" specification that the bet should be based on clearly said that BFL cannot meet the earlier power usage speculations, but promised to deliver products that will outperform competition in terms of megahash/J.

So if you want to go the speculation route and take forum posts into account, then the post on 29-03-2013 negates the post that BitBet based their decision on. BFL had not promised any megahash/J and the remaining advertised specs all check out green -> "Yes" should have won.

And again, if they should have chosen to disregard forum posts "Yes" would be a clear winner again based on the Product Page details and FAQ saying that no power consumption will be announced yet.

To add to the stupidity of basing the outcome on the old forum post: the product classes advertised on that post were cancelled and new line of products were introduced before the bet was created, ie. 4.5GH/s Jalopeno got replaced with 5GH/s Bitcoin Miner.

I'm a very reasonable person, but I really think that me and other "Yes" bettors were wronged and apparently will be wronged on the July 1st bet too.

Now if BitBet can come up with a logical, reasonable explanation for what I think was poor and biased judgement, I will apologize and be on my way.

TLDR; "Yes" should have won whether you look at forum posts or product pages for "advertised performance".

[rikur]

Bump. Waiting for a response from BitBet.

[mem]

- A "Bad Bet" should not have been allowed in the first place
- Before the bet was closed and it became clear that the bet is a "Bad Bet", it should have been cancelled and funds returned

I agree wholly with this 2 points you have made.

Im still watching the results, may I have some specific links to where BFL changes their power quotes ?
Something official please if you can find it.

[Mabsark]

At this point my thought process was as follows: "Hmm, looks like they aren't gonna hit spec, and there is a bet here that says as much, why I can't lose... I wonder what spec means *jumps on IRC, has suspecions concerned* hmm think ill plunk 20 down on that..."

The fact that you had to jump on to an IRC channel to get that vital information instead of it being presented in the actual bet proves that BitBet misled it's users. If BitBet were an advertiser, that would be the equivalent of false advertising, and Ofcom would bitch slap them for it.

That kind of chatter made it pretty clear they weren't gonna hit the performance they'd promised (sure they would hit one of the metrics, and if you were to arbitrarily decide that one metric was important and another wasn't - as you have - then you could say they hit performance. Why would you do that though, its the equivalent to lying by omission.) BFL even said it.

Exactly. By the time that bet was made, BFL had already changed the specifications. I know that, you know that and BitBet also knows that. BitBet simply ignored this fact, and used the specifications from about 6 months earlier.

So when they virtua-shipped a device end of march to luke-jr (does that even count), then as april progressed they irl-shipped a few boxes to others (uh oh 6x power consumption though and is that guy on codinginmysleep real or is it still actually a scam?), and by the end of april they had gone crazy and got double digits out the door. They satisfied the 'shipped' and 'asic' part, but, as I said on the bet discussion at the time:

"All these ASICs and none of 'em to spec. So sad."

So there is an answer. Whether you deem it "good" well, thats just your opinion 'innit.

You've already pointed out that the specs had changed by the time the bet was made.

[Mabsark]

- A "Bad Bet" should not have been allowed in the first place
- Before the bet was closed and it became clear that the bet is a "Bad Bet", it should have been cancelled and funds returned

I agree wholly with this 2 points you have made.

Im still watching the results, may I have some specific links to where BFL changes their power quotes ?
Something official please if you can find it.

Here's an official video from the 30/03/13 demonstrating the ASIC and clearly showing the power consumption. This is the video mentioned in the 28th March update I guess.

Here's a thread on the BFL forum discussing the revised power consumption. Those discussion seem to based on statement made in the ShoutBox. You can see the transcript here.