bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products

[MPOE-PR]

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.

Wait, what?

For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.

[Branksy]

Wait, what?

For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.

If you think i'm calling out people i work with on a bitcoin forum then your grasp on reality must be a struggle.  A more productive response would be some sort of rebuttal to my argument.

[MPOE-PR]

Wait, what?

For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.

If you think i'm calling out people i work with on a bitcoin forum then your grasp on reality must be a struggle.  A more productive response would be some sort of rebuttal to my argument.

Here's a rebuttal: Anon asswipe (that's you) makes random appeal to authority (that'd be your anon expert friends). He then fails to name the authority, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination. He then proceeds to claim "the OP's grasp on reality must be a struggle", because that's the problem with people showing internet idiots that they're internet idiots: teh grasp on reality, man.

Next step, complain that I ad-hominem. Because after failing at making an argument, and failing at making a broken argument and failing at the entire "I win by losing" thing that's the one avenue left.

Fucking retards seriously, how can you go on living? It's beyond the credible.

[Mabsark]

Wait, what?

For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.

If you think i'm calling out people i work with on a bitcoin forum then your grasp on reality must be a struggle.  A more productive response would be some sort of rebuttal to my argument.

Here's a rebuttal: Anon asswipe (that's you) makes random appeal to authority (that'd be your anon expert friends). He then fails to name the authority, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination. He then proceeds to claim "the OP's grasp on reality must be a struggle", because that's the problem with people showing internet idiots that they're internet idiots: teh grasp on reality, man.

Next step, complain that I ad-hominem. Because after failing at making an argument, and failing at making a broken argument and failing at the entire "I win by losing" thing that's the one avenue left.

Fucking retards seriously, how can you go on living? It's beyond the credible.

Someone press this idiot on why they refuse to add the essential information about what constitutes "advertised performance" to the actual bet if they're not a bunch of scamming cunts.

[Branksy]

Here's a rebuttal: Anon asswipe (that's you) makes random appeal to authority (that'd be your anon expert friends). He then fails to name the authority, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination. He then proceeds to claim "the OP's grasp on reality must be a struggle", because that's the problem with people showing internet idiots that they're internet idiots: teh grasp on reality, man.

Next step, complain that I ad-hominem. Because after failing at making an argument, and failing at making a broken argument and failing at the entire "I win by losing" thing that's the one avenue left.

Fucking retards seriously, how can you go on living? It's beyond the credible.

My sources are irrelevant.  What is relevant is that nobody has addressed my points with any valid counter arguments, or god forbid a link and not just a wall of text with no factual statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt

Being anon online doesn't mean anything.  For all i know every person arguing in this thread is the same guy.

[sgbett]

My sources are irrelevant.  What is relevant is that nobody has addressed my points with any valid counter arguments, or god forbid a link and not just a wall of text with no factual statements.

Your point(s) all seemed to be that you and your friends had some opinion on what should or should not constitute "performance", and that your opinion was that power consumption didn't count.

Well here is my opinion:

Performance describes the manner in which something functions. Those attributes that are particular to its operation, how it 'performs'.

Specifications describe what something is. Its physical attributes, its form.

Now you said...

As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers.  I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications.  What i heard back unanimously (from my small sample) is that performance doesn't relate to power consumption, that would be Performance Per Watt, which is different.  It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance.  Energy is just a utility to achieve performance, not the performance itself.

I understand that the reason BFL looked so good is because of the performance per watt, but just because we want low wattage for maximum profits, and just because that's what we based our pre-orders on, still doesn't mean it's relevant to "Advertised Performance".

Lets break that down:

You contrast performance and specification as being two distinct things. This statement is important because it sets the mood. You will use this idea later to affirm the disjunct.

You ask your friends to categorise "power requirements" as performance or specification. However "requirements" are something that might form part of an objects design, so naturally it would seem fit that requirements are considered part of a device's specification. Requirements exist independently of an object ever operating.

When phrasing their response, you play a clever trick and switch the term "power requirements" for "power consumption", you say your friends tell you "power consumption" is not an aspect of performance.

Power consumption is something that happens when a device is functioning. Consumption happens (more than likely in line with the specified power requirements) when the device 'performing'. It is an aspect of 'performance', which will likely be in line with the specified "power requirements".

You try to redefine this aspect of performance as being something else. However in creating this other "not-performance" category, you actually use the word performance to describe it!

You then make the statement "It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance".

This is where you attempt to close the deal.

You attempt to assert that "power consumption" is not performance, and use your original premise of categorising things as "performance or specification" to assert that it must then be part of the device's specification.

"performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical.

It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars".

[Mabsark]

My sources are irrelevant.  What is relevant is that nobody has addressed my points with any valid counter arguments, or god forbid a link and not just a wall of text with no factual statements.

Your point(s) all seemed to be that you and your friends had some opinion on what should or should not constitute "performance", and that your opinion was that power consumption didn't count.

Well here is my opinion:

Performance describes the manner in which something functions. Those attributes that are particular to its operation, how it 'performs'.

Specifications describe what something is. Its physical attributes, its form.

Now you said...

As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers.  I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications.  What i heard back unanimously (from my small sample) is that performance doesn't relate to power consumption, that would be Performance Per Watt, which is different.  It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance.  Energy is just a utility to achieve performance, not the performance itself.

I understand that the reason BFL looked so good is because of the performance per watt, but just because we want low wattage for maximum profits, and just because that's what we based our pre-orders on, still doesn't mean it's relevant to "Advertised Performance".

Lets break that down:

You contrast performance and specification as being two distinct things. This statement is important because it sets the mood. You will use this idea later to affirm the disjunct.

You ask your friends to categorise "power requirements" as performance or specification. However "requirements" are something that might form part of an objects design, so naturally it would seem fit that requirements are considered part of a device's specification. Requirements exist independently of an object ever operating.

When phrasing their response, you play a clever trick and switch the term "power requirements" for "power consumption", you say your friends tell you "power consumption" is not an aspect of performance.

Power consumption is something that happens when a device is functioning. Consumption happens (more than likely in line with the specified power requirements) when the device 'performing'. It is an aspect of 'performance', which will likely be in line with the specified "power requirements".

You try to redefine this aspect of performance as being something else. However in creating this other "not-performance" category, you actually use the word performance to describe it!

You then make the statement "It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance".

This is where you attempt to close the deal.

You attempt to assert that "power consumption" is not performance, and use your original premise of categorising things as "performance or specification" to assert that it must then be part of the device's specification.

"performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical.

It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars".

Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency. I pointed that out several pages ago. The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance. Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing. Performance is about speed, Performance per Watt is about efficiency.

It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance, otherwise we would simply call it performance and not performance per watt.

Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it.

How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?

Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple.

[MPOE-PR]

This thread would benefit from more colors. Here are some colors for it:

[sgbett]

Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple.

Heres the first hit on google

ef·fi·cien·cy  [ih-fish-uhn-see]  Show IPA
noun, plural ef·fi·cien·cies.
1.
the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance.

efficiency ⊆ performance
speed ⊆ performance
performance per watt ⊆ performance

performance ⊇ any aspect of performance

You appear to be trying to assert that: "because a different word was used to describe one aspect of performance, it is not performance"

You cannot redefine what words actually mean.

Its got nothing to do with finance, or technology, and everything to do with just knowing what words mean.

You have just re-asserted what branksy said, despite that fact that his whole argument was fallacious, by using more fallacious statements.

"The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance." Ad hominem.

"Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing." Appeal to common sense.

"It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance." Divine fallacy

"Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it." Appeal to motive.

"How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum.

Besides, that is another affirmation of the disjunct. You allege that [everyone on anandtech] says performance per watt is efficiency, therefore it is not performance. The dictionary clearly states that efficieny is in fact a measure of performance.

That leaves these two essentially identical statements:

"Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency."
"Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple."

Again, with the presenting opinion as fact: Special Pleading, Mind Projection fallacy.

You have said nothing that warrants consideration. You present no evidence, just repeat conjecture.

MPOE posted a link to advertised performance, they are the conditions of the bet, that fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

[Mabsark]

Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple.

Heres the first hit on google

ef·fi·cien·cy  [ih-fish-uhn-see]  Show IPA
noun, plural ef·fi·cien·cies.
1.
the state or quality of being efficient; competency in performance.

efficiency ⊆ performance
speed ⊆ performance
performance per watt ⊆ performance

performance ⊇ any aspect of performance

You appear to be trying to assert that: "because a different word was used to describe one aspect of performance, it is not performance"

You cannot redefine what words actually mean.

Its got nothing to do with finance, or technology, and everything to do with just knowing what words mean.

You have just re-asserted what branksy said, despite that fact that his whole argument was fallacious, by using more fallacious statements.

"The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance." Ad hominem.

"Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing." Appeal to common sense.

"It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance." Divine fallacy

"Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it." Appeal to motive.

"How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum.

Besides, that is another affirmation of the disjunct. You allege that [everyone on anandtech] says performance per watt is efficiency, therefore it is not performance. The dictionary clearly states that efficieny is in fact a measure of performance.

That leaves these two essentially identical statements:

"Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency."
"Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple."

Again, with the presenting opinion as fact: Special Pleading, Mind Projection fallacy.

You have said nothing that warrants consideration. You present no evidence, just repeat conjecture.

MPOE posted a link to advertised performance, they are the conditions of the bet, that fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

Let's ignore the fact then that performance is not performance per watt, despite what some financial weasels think, and focus on the fact that "MPOE posted a link to advertised performance". The only place that such a link would have any purpose whatsoever, is in the actual bet itself and it isn't there, despite repeated requests to have it added. It makes no sense at all to post the link on this forum where nobody using the BitBet site can see it.

You can defend the elitist, racist, scummy, piece of shit scammers as much as you want, after all, they've paid you to do so by deciding that May bet in your favour. Their actions speak louder than their and your words, and their action are those of a scammer.

[MPOE-PR]

"How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum.

For the record, a boatload of neckbeards doesn't pay for one single financier. This because tech people actually are humanly inferior to money people. They're less of a person.

[rikur]

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

Let's break this apart a bit shall we?

Butterfly Labs aka BFL will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices

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

to their customers

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

before 1st of May 2013

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

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

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

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

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

performance in order to be accepted as valid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Branksy]

Performance describes the manner in which something functions. Those attributes that are particular to its operation, how it 'performs'.

Specifications describe what something is. Its physical attributes, its form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_(technical_standard)
"A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, design, product, or service."

A spec is a set of requirements for achieving performance.  It could be the amount of helium in the air required to do an experiment, consuming that helium like miners consume power.

You ask your friends to categorise "power requirements" as performance or specification. However "requirements" are something that might form part of an objects design, so naturally it would seem fit that requirements are considered part of a device's specification. Requirements exist independently of an object ever operating.

When phrasing their response, you play a clever trick and switch the term "power requirements" for "power consumption", you say your friends tell you "power consumption" is not an aspect of performance.

Power consumption is something that happens when a device is functioning. Consumption happens (more than likely in line with the specified power requirements) when the device 'performing'. It is an aspect of 'performance', which will likely be in line with the specified "power requirements".

You try to redefine this aspect of performance as being something else. However in creating this other "not-performance" category, you actually use the word performance to describe it!

If you'll notice my link to wikipedia earlier in a previous post, it should clear this up for you, assuming you understand hardware.

"performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical.

It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars".

GH/s stands for GH/s...not GH/w/s.  I'll concede that standard performance measurements in the mining community haven't been uniquely defined.  But that only supports the fact that we need to use the terms that the people who build hardware use, which is what i'm doing and you're not.

[sgbett]

A spec is a set of requirements for achieving performance.  It could be the amount of helium in the air required to do an experiment, consuming that helium like miners consume power.

I agree that would be specification of the experiment, when the experiment is underway, the rate at which the helium is used would constitute a part of that experiments performance though.

If you'll notice my link to wikipedia earlier in a previous post, it should clear this up for you, assuming you understand hardware.

The wikipedia link describes performance per watt. Merely affirming that it is a performance metric.

"performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical.

It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars".

GH/s stands for GH/s...not GH/w/s. 

Sorry typo. Rather an unfortunate one, but still a typo.

I'll concede that standard performance measurements in the mining community haven't been uniquely defined.  But that only supports the fact that we need to use the terms that the people who build hardware use, which is what i'm doing and you're not.

No I am not defining anything, I am saying performance per watt is just a facet of performance.

Unless you have some evidence that it isn't we are done.

[sgbett]

And you still try to push your agenda with misrepresentation, and conflation of your opinion with facts.

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

People have opinions on all sorts of things. Just because people don't agree with something it does not make that thing any less sure.

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

The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power.

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

Thats very kind, but my reading comprehension is adequate for this very simple exercise.

[Mabsark]

And you still try to push your agenda with misrepresentation, and conflation of your opinion with facts.

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

People have opinions on all sorts of things. Just because people don't agree with something it does not make that thing any less sure.

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

The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power.

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

Thats very kind, but my reading comprehension is adequate for this very simple exercise.

The only misrepresentation going on is by BitBet. They clearly think that performance = performance per watt, they also clearly know that a lot of people think that performance per watt is not performance, yet they do nothing whatsoever to clarify the vague phrase "advertised performance" when they could quite easily specify exactly what that performance is on the bet.

The fact that they refuse to do so, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are deliberately misleading their users in order to rip them off. All because they have a grudge against BFL.

[MPOE-PR]

Oh hey, this thread still going? And the people who fucked up are still sore in the butt? And nothing else is coming out of it?

Who could have imagined it!

Here's a five cent clue, kids: Stay in school. Trolling for BFL doesn't pay.

[Este Nuno]

I can't even believe people are trying to argue that this bet should have gone the other way.

Talk about delusional, jeez.

[rikur]

And you still try to push your agenda with misrepresentation, and conflation of your opinion with facts.

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

People have opinions on all sorts of things. Just because people don't agree with something it does not make that thing any less sure.

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

The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power.

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

Thats very kind, but my reading comprehension is adequate for this very simple exercise.

So you insist on having GH/J as part of the specs / performance, yet you claim that decreased GH/J doesn't change the specs / performance metrics. Good job.

[Branksy]

the rate at which the helium is used would constitute a part of that experiments performance

By that logic the rate of decay of all parts of the machinery are included in performance.  Meaning that cheap parts that can produce the same output as more expensive parts would have lower performance because they will degrade quicker.  You could also say that a fans ability to not be clogged would be performance, even though that's not addressed.

The wikipedia link describes performance per watt. Merely affirming that it is a performance metric.

It is in fact a performance metric, but the bet was not made on that specific metric.  We could expand on this logic to say that the whole bet depends on a single unused diode.

No I am not defining anything, I am saying performance per watt is just a facet of performance.

I didn't mean to accuse you of defining it, i just wanted to point out that it's undefined right now.

Unless you have some evidence that it isn't we are done.

I think i've pretty much stated my case.  At this point i'm just replying to replies