bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[inh]

Well then, idiot:

1) For the July 1st BFL bet, what exactly is the advertised performance?

Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced.

Which is what? Post the specifications or a link to them so we can see what the decision will be based on.

[1714865178]

1714865178

[1714865178]

1714865178

[1714865178]

1714865178

[dooglus]

Well then, idiot:

1) For the July 1st BFL bet, what exactly is the advertised performance?

Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced.

Which is what? Post the specifications or a link to them so we can see what the decision will be based on.

The bet seems to have lots of possibilities for misunderstanding:

1) will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers

To all of their customers?  To at least one of their customers?

2) Devices must be in scope

One of them?  All of them?  Presumably the performance will vary between the fastest and the slowest.  Or the most efficient and the least efficient.

3) of at least +-10%

"at least plus or minus 10%"?  What does that mean?  If the advertised performance was 100 (whatevers), then it has to be "at least 90 or 110"?  Isn't that the same as just "at least 90"?

4) of advertised

Advertised where?  And when?  Got a link?  Or a copy/paste?  I've no idea where to find it (except maybe http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html which says:

1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149

2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299

3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

What is at least +-10% of roughly 40 GH/s?  Is it roughly at least 36 or 44 GH/s?  Is 35 GH/s roughly at least 36 GH/s?  What?  Not even roughly?

5) performance

Is that hashes per second or hashes per Joule?  I guess it depends on which advertisement the bet is referring to.  If it's the above Yahoo 'PRWeb' thing then it looks like they're talking about just hashes per second.  But it would be useful to know which advertised performance statistic the bet is referring to.

There's still a over a month left on the bet.  Wouldn't it be best to clear up the ambiguities before the bet is settled?

[rikur]

Bump: BitBet, please let us know the advertised performance for the May 1st BFL bet and July 1st BFL bet. And if you could please elaborate on your sources a bit, that would be nice.

[Sukrim]

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.

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.

^^^
That's the answer I got 2 weeks ago on that exact topic... see page 4

[rikur]

I was hoping for a new answer since the ones you just pasted are lopsided and based on old information.

July 1st bet seems to be created on 15-03-2013, thus BitBet could argue that the increased GH/J was not mentioned by BFL back then. This still leaves the already closed May 1st bet open for debate, since it was created on 30-03-2013 and by that time BFL had already announced that they can't meet the GH/J promised earlier and only promised to deliver higher GH and GH/j than the competitors.

[sgbett]

<snip>...This still leaves the already closed May 1st bet open for debate, since it was created on 30-03-2013 and by that time BFL had already announced that they can't meet the GH/J promised earlier and only promised to deliver higher GH and GH/j than the competitors.

oh its you again with the 'spec changed before 30th March' claim.

Repeating the same thing over and over agin doesn't make it true.

link plox

the best I can find is (28th March) https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html

where josh says they are using more power than they would like, he also say specifically "...if we end up having to scale back any given class of unit..."

pay careful attention to the words - they tell you things. that "if" is critical. that means they haven't changed the spec yet.

Only on 1st April does Josh say they have 'missed their power specs' (shoutbox / retweeted by @BFL_News if you care to check) at which point its fair to say that the specs *will* change (but technically still haven't).

So you see you keep saying 'at the time the bet was posted RAH RAH RAH' but what you are saying doesn't actually add up. I am not debating with you, there is nothing to debate. I keep posting facts, and you keep posting your opinion.

[rikur]

From the same link you just posted:

28 March 2013 - Mini-Update

I had wanted to post a video tonight, but wasn't able to make that happen, so let me apologize for that in advance. As some of you may know from the chatbox, we have been working diligently to get these ASICs out the door. We've been tracking down a power issue these last few days and have it isolated to a few key systems. In the interest of time, we are planning on potentially scaling back units hashing speed as required to accommodate the extra power and shipping multiple units to those that want their units right now. If would would prefer to wait for a unit after we've made some changes to the systems that need a bit of tweaking, we will be happy to put your shipment on hold. However, if you'd rather have the units right now at an increased power usage, we will ship you as many units as required to get you to the hashrate your purchased, if we end up having to scale back any given class of unit to fit within the power envelope of the current board design.

We have the current design hashing, and as I said, I had hoped to have a video of a unit hashing here in KC, but I wasn't able to bring that all together tonight, but hopefully I can get it posted up tomorrow or by this weekend. I will update as soon as I have more news to share, with a video.

If you absolutely do not want a unit that is consuming more power than expected, you can let us know you'd like to wait for a revised unit or you are welcome to request a refund. If you'd rather have your units shipped regardless of increased power usage, we will still guarantee your hashrate by shipping you however many units are required to achieve your purchased hashrate. There is no need to contact us right now if you are not concerned about the power usage and just want your units shipped ASAP.Even with the increased power demand on these first units, they will still out perform any competing products by a very wide margin in terms of power and megahash/J.

Again, we apologize for the delay, but we are almost there.

Please take a 2nd read. It clearly says that if you're ok with increased power use, no action is needed. Customers were asked to take action only in the case that they wanted wait to get products with the earlier specs (same performance, higher efficiency) or if they wanted a refund since the product specs have changed.

"Even with the increased power demand.." also states that first products will have higher power demand than previously thought, but they still promised to outperform competing products in terms of power (performance) and megahash/J (efficiency).

What did I miss?

[rikur]

<snip>...This still leaves the already closed May 1st bet open for debate, since it was created on 30-03-2013 and by that time BFL had already announced that they can't meet the GH/J promised earlier and only promised to deliver higher GH and GH/j than the competitors.

oh its you again with the 'spec changed before 30th March' claim.

Repeating the same thing over and over agin doesn't make it true.

link plox

the best I can find is (28th March) https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html

where josh says they are using more power than they would like, he also say specifically "...if we end up having to scale back any given class of unit..."

pay careful attention to the words - they tell you things. that "if" is critical. that means they haven't changed the spec yet.

Only on 1st April does Josh say they have 'missed their power specs' (shoutbox / retweeted by @BFL_News if you care to check) at which point its fair to say that the specs *will* change (but technically still haven't).

So you see you keep saying 'at the time the bet was posted RAH RAH RAH' but what you are saying doesn't actually add up. I am not debating with you, there is nothing to debate. I keep posting facts, and you keep posting your opinion.

Attention is needed, the "critical if" sentence says that they might have to send you many units in order to achieve advertised performance(GH/s) because the efficiency (GH/J) has changed and they might not fit the power envelope of the board.

In other words: Because of increased power usage, they might have to scale back (underclock/less chips per board) and send you two units instead of one.

EDIT:

RAH RAH RAH. Now at least one of your points is not moot.

[sgbett]

I'll humour you.

I'm going to assume you want me to focus on the bold bits:

If you absolutely do not want a unit that is consuming more power than expected, you can let us know you'd like to wait for a revised unit or you are welcome to request a refund.

It means these units they made they are going to ship to people who are cool with that. The fact he gave you the option to wait for a revised unit would suggest that they are still working to hit the original spec.

If he had phrased it like "if you do not want one of these units then you better request a refund, because this is as good as it gets" then I would agree that would imply the spec had changed.


Even with the increased power demand on these first units, they will still out perform any competing products by a very wide margin in terms of power and megahash/J.

It does indeed say these units consume more than before, but it does not say that this is now the new standard. In fact the phraseology used specifically sets apart these 'first units' as being distinct from 'some other units'. The implication being those other units will be to spec, because of course, they have not at this point stated that they are giving up on hitting that spec.

So when I linked you to that post, I said this was the 'best I can find'. What I mean by that is that you can try and take that post and infer that the spec has changed/is changing/will change. It doesn't actually say it though. So if there is no evidence that something happened, then the default position is that a thing did not happen - the burden of proof lies with you. Prove they changed the spec prior to 30th March.

The 1st April post doesn't even say they are changing spec. What it does is it proves, that at the point that he said that, he considered that those specs could still be 'missed'. Its an implicit acknowledgement that until that point at least, the specs were still in play.

Consequence follows action, it is the natural order of things.

Action: we misssed spec.
Consequence: we change spec.

Now you could get into some deep buddhist shit about the nature of causality, and try and argue that the changing of the spec and the missing of the spec have no causal link (see: Naagaarjuna for more on that!) and I'll certainly not be able to deny it. Still it ain't gonna get you your witch burnt is it?

[sgbett]

Attention is needed, the "critical if" sentence says that they might have to send you many units in order to achieve advertised performance(GH/s) because the efficiency (GH/J) has changed and they might not fit the power envelope of the board.

In other words: Because of increased power usage, they might have to scale back (underclock/less chips per board) and send you two units instead of one.

EDIT:

RAH RAH RAH. Now at least one of your points is not moot.

I don't have to prove anything, you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.

The 'if' creates doubt. Therefore nothing that follows it can be taken as proof for one side or the other.

You need to find proof the spec changed, not your opinion on whether the spec will theoretically change "if" XYZ...

[sgbett]

To make it clear there is a distinction between:

a. we might have to do "this and that", and
b. we are doing "that and this"

in column a, we have not been told that anything has changed, we have been given a mysterious future where things may change. "things may change" is intrinsically the same as "things may not change" it is a state of flux, that cannot be conclusively argued one way or another until the cat is out of the box, and we can see whether it is alive or dead.

however, as the cat was alive when it went into the box then I can just say it is alive and I am not required to prove it, the lid shuts a live cat went in. The cat was alive when it went in, and until it is actually dead, then it is not *in fact* dead.

To prove it is dead, requires the box to be opened. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to claim it is dead. until the box is open the pro-dead lobby can argue all they want about the condition of the cat, but it can never be said that the cat is dead.

That is what is happening here, the spec is/was the spec until such time as it wasn't. All that conjecture about whether it was going to change, well that doesn't actually change it.

It was around April 4th when BFL moved over into column B. They had tried to get the power down (to the original spec) and had improved lots but realised they could not. Then they said "this is the new power spec" and "these are your options".

That was when they opened the box. That was the day the cat died.

[rikur]

I'll humour you.

I'm going to assume you want me to focus on the bold bits:

If you absolutely do not want a unit that is consuming more power than expected, you can let us know you'd like to wait for a revised unit or you are welcome to request a refund.

It means these units they made they are going to ship to people who are cool with that. The fact he gave you the option to wait for a revised unit would suggest that they are still working to hit the original spec.

If he had phrased it like "if you do not want one of these units then you better request a refund, because this is as good as it gets" then I would agree that would imply the spec had changed.


Even with the increased power demand on these first units, they will still out perform any competing products by a very wide margin in terms of power and megahash/J.

It does indeed say these units consume more than before, but it does not say that this is now the new standard. In fact the phraseology used specifically sets apart these 'first units' as being distinct from 'some other units'. The implication being those other units will be to spec, because of course, they have not at this point stated that they are giving up on hitting that spec.

So when I linked you to that post, I said this was the 'best I can find'. What I mean by that is that you can try and take that post and infer that the spec has changed/is changing/will change. It doesn't actually say it though. So if there is no evidence that something happened, then the default position is that a thing did not happen - the burden of proof lies with you. Prove they changed the spec prior to 30th March.

The 1st April post doesn't even say they are changing spec. What it does is it proves, that at the point that he said that, he considered that those specs could still be 'missed'. Its an implicit acknowledgement that until that point at least, the specs were still in play.

Consequence follows action, it is the natural order of things.

Action: we misssed spec.
Consequence: we change spec.

Now you could get into some deep buddhist shit about the nature of causality, and try and argue that the changing of the spec and the missing of the spec have no causal link (see: Naagaarjuna for more on that!) and I'll certainly not be able to deny it. Still it ain't gonna get you your witch burnt is it?

I am not sure know if you're blind, stupid or just trolling, but let me wrap it up for you:

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.
2. 30-03-2013 The BitBet was created
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.

[rikur]

And of course all this could have been avoided if BitBet used the actual product pages as their source of information. Or the FAQ that said that the company will not advertise power consumption at this point.

But even if you played by their "rules" and looked at forum posts, the "Yes" bet should still have won as I've pointed out many times before.

Still waiting for an update from BitBEt.

[MPOE-PR]

1) will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers

To all of their customers?  To at least one of their customers?

To a significant fraction thereof. This means that one person claiming to have received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet (such as the Luke-jr fraud has done with the betsofbitco.in scam "bet"). This also means that one person claiming to have not received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet the other way.

Ideally this could be further clarified. Practically, it cannot be further clarified. This is the unfortunate limitation of Bitcoin per se (more of the same here). We will have (absolutely all of us, whether we want to or not, whether we think it's fair or not, whether anything else) to learn to live with it.

2) Devices must be in scope

All of them. This should not logically be a problem, seeing how the devices are presumed to be mass produced rather than carved by hand somewhere. I agree that for the time it took so far they might as well been hand carved, but this unfortunately is simply not a possibility that was considered or even reasonable at the time the bet was made. Consequently, it's baked in.

3) of at least +-10%

"at least plus or minus 10%"?  What does that mean?  If the advertised performance was 100 (whatevers), then it has to be "at least 90 or 110"?  Isn't that the same as just "at least 90"?

This was already explained multiple other places, but:

A. It is there because this is the retarded manner in which BFL (the producer itself!) phrased their own offering. In the choice between A.1. "phrase the bet differently from the producer, and be accused of loading the bet" and A.2. "phrase the bet exactly the same as the producer, and then face the hordes holding you to higher standards than the producer seeing how everyone knows BFL is a scam and everyone knows MP upholds his obligations to the word and letter" A.2. prevailed. This is because MP personally and his venture in this case are shining beacons of ideal perfection, as compared to everything else in Bitcoin, such as for instance (in this case) BFL.

B. It is interpreted in favor of BFL, which is to say that hash of no less than 90% and power consumption of no more than 110% of the spec. It won't decide against delivery if the hashing delivered is MORE than promised, or if the power usage is LESS than promised. It will decide against delivery if either hashing delivered is more than 10% under advertised values, or if power consumption is more than 10% over advertised values. The "or"s in the foregoing are plain (as opposed to exclusive), and I am getting slightly worried at noticing I feel compelled to specify that.

4) of advertised

Advertised where?  And when?  Got a link?  Or a copy/paste?  I've no idea where to find it

Kindly see post #10 in this thread.

5) performance

Is that hashes per second or hashes per Joule?

It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

To remind everyone: This bet followed the statements that BFL itself made, back when it was lying to all of you. You don't like the lies you've swallowed, talk to the cook.

[Sukrim]

It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

Please link to the advertisement as well as state these numbers here + on the bet. There are several advertisements out there that are at least partly conflicting which leads to confusion as you can clearly see. Time to clear this up.

[MPOE-PR]

It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

Please link to the advertisement as well as state these numbers here + on the bet. There are several advertisements out there that are at least partly conflicting which leads to confusion as you can clearly see. Time to clear this up.

4.5 GH / 4.5 W
60 GH / 60 W
1.5 TH / 1.5 kW.

[deadweasel]

It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

Please link to the advertisement as well as state these numbers here + on the bet. There are several advertisements out there that are at least partly conflicting which leads to confusion as you can clearly see. Time to clear this up.

4.5 GH / 4.5 W
60 GH / 60 W
1.5 TH / 1.5 kW.

Wow, that is pretty damn clear. 

[Mabsark]

Wow, that is pretty damn clear. 

As is the date of 09-30-2012. Also, that vital information has still not been made available at the only place that matters - the actual bet itself. MPOE-PR is also contradicting themselves by claiming:

Whoever proposed this bet:

ASICMiner is currently the world's largest bitcoin mining operation. Their hashrate is public and can be seen here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkPdXsQFT-vIdHRVUjQ5Ql9BQWR6OENLMkhyUktUblE#gid=0

The bet closes yes if their public hashrate exceeds 50 Terrahashes/second before June 1st.

Had a good idea but executed poorly. Basically as stated this is a bet on the contents of a webpage, might as well be something like:

pastebin.com/blabla says "42"

Is there some way to reconstruct this bet based on objective, verifiable criteria?

Face it, they're a bunch of scammers who are full of shit.

Basically as stated this is a bet on the contents of a webpage...

Yet deciding BFL bets on the contents of a webpage from 09-30-2012 is perfectly fine.

[sgbett]

I am not sure know if you're blind, stupid or just trolling, but let me wrap it up for you:

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.


2. 30-03-2013 The BitBet was created
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.

Let me just sum up what you posted:

1. "Some Other Bullshit you keep trying to pass off as the fact that the spec changed"
2. A Fact
3. A Fact with added evidence.

A delusional statement that seems to imply that you think "posting your opinion = proof"

You keep saying the spec changed before 30th March. I keep saying prove it.

[Branksy]

You obviously asked the wrong people, for one, and you obviously omitted informing them that the specifications did in fact include a power usage for the other. Either of these make the results of the ask operation undefined.

There seems to be a misconception among some people that specifications are the same as performance...they are not.  If you want to get technical about it, even the circuit boards are specifications, where performance is the end result of the specifications.  The people i asked were well aware of all information, they just know that i asked about "Advertised Performance".  It's kind of like the people talking about stacking GPUs in a box.  A GPU is not an ASIC, and arguments like that from bitbet representatives only confirm what most people reading this thread have figured out.