Time to sue ButterflyLabs - Big Single-SC owner let's league for class action

[Bicknellski]

No proof you shipped a unit to the FCC so you have lied to your customers about it being at the FCC at all and it was going to be approved in a 2 week time frame.

Are you now saying you never posted that anywhere?

[1714879378]

1714879378

[1714879378]

1714879378

[bcp19]

The DIY boards have one massive advantage - they have the lessons learnt from BFL and its boards shemozzle. They know the true power consumption of the chips upfront and can design the power supply to suit. They have reference designs from BFL to work with too, if they want to be extra lazy. Lastly, they aren't working with the kinds of quantity that BFL is. The hardest work has already been done for them.

And Bicknellski still couldn't even manage to ship a single board out.

Hilarious, the pot calling the kettle black on shipping issues.

Slow shipping versus no shipping... hardly a pot/kettle argument.  But you can only cut and paste, so we have to allow for that.

[Inaba]

No proof you shipped a unit to the FCC so you lied to your customers.

You really don't know what the definition of proof is, do you?  I suggests you research "Evidence of absence" before you post again, you look like an idiot. (Frankly, I think it would be hard for you to not look like an idiot at this point, since your entire life seems to revolve around failure, but that's another story.)

[Viceroy]

Josh I think, for the community, this is a pretty important question for us to ask such an esteemed vendor as yourself.

What products have you registered with the FCC and what are there registration numbers?

[k9quaint]

No proof you shipped a unit to the FCC so you lied to your customers.

You really don't know what the definition of proof is, do you?  I suggests you research "Evidence of absence" before you post again, you look like an idiot. (Frankly, I think it would be hard for you to not look like an idiot at this point, since your entire life seems to revolve around failure, but that's another story.)

Inaba has been dodging that question since November of 2012 when he made the claim that BFL was getting FCC certification.
You can read his claim here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119351.msg1314335#msg1314335

When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?

Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified.  We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

He said the Jalapeno (original form factor, not the new Single case) had gone to a lab and they were just waiting on the report.

[YipYip]

Violating  FTC refund rules ??

These are the questions Josh

[DrJoeGrine]

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

[bcp19]

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

BFL is shipping, eh?  Bick could not ship, eh?  Sprechen zie Engrish?

[YipYip]

Its called dodging the question by going on the attack

Josh & BFL have been doing this forever & a day

...lol..ho hum... get some new material Jailbird joey

[DrJoeGrine]

Bick could have shipped delayed like BFL but decided to refund instead. One approach created anti BFL customers the other created respect.

[Red_Wolf_2]

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

[Bicknellski]

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

I make no excuses.

We saw the delays would be long and painful for our customers to wait and would adversely affect their ROI. As a cooperative we decided that we had to start refunding proactively as that was only fair and ethical course of action. We were very explicit not to use the BTC collected from our customers in fact some of the delays in our initial refunds were caused by the fact we had put all the BTC into cold paper storage and took nearly 3 days to get them back in the hands of the cooperative so we could refund people. And we apologized to no ends for our slow and utterly useless handling of refunds.

We don't hide behind Avalon's failure to provide chips in time for fabrication. We are the ones who cancelled the project we take full responsibility for it's failure. Will the K1 be our last project... no. I am sure our collective decision was the right one and I hope the majority of our customers and the community see this for what it is the right action for the right moment. Did we make mistakes of course we did, could we have waited longer... of course. Will we be stopping there... no.

There is a huge difference between what we want for the community and what BFL wants. We want to help support DIY and miners and hopefully that can happen with our next project. We are very upset with our failure and we know we let down BKKCoins but we really didn't want to have more people held hostage so we had to cut the K1 off.

[PuertoLibre]

IF BFL had delivered in January as I had thought,I/we would have made out like 1st batch Avalons did,almost

This is why you don't understand how bitcoin works and why your arguments are laughable.  Do you seriously believe you would be the only person receiving a unit?  Because that is the only scenario where this statement would be true, otherwise, it's just plain false.

Josh,I know more about Bitcoin,than you know about ASIC's bro  

Avalon 1st batch customers & BFL customers would of had the "Early adopter Advantage",which at the time of ordering is what WE as BFL customers had COUNTED on.There was only AsicMiner on the near horizon,no other competitors were anywhere near to release time in January.

But you,BFL,kept delaying over & over again,because of ineptness & cost us,your customers,that advantage.Aww boohoo right  

Yes,all BFL devices will make a "positive return" for quite sometime.Any "return" is positive,no matter how small..............

But no where near the amount had BFL delivered in the original timeframe of Oct 2012-Jan 2013.

Thank you for your thoughts & get back to shipping ASAP  

Once again, this is why you don't understand how bitcoin works.  Let me see if I can dumb it down enough for you to understand:

When excess hashrate is on the network, the difficulty rises until it reaches an equilibrium with the hashrate so that 6 blocks are created per hour.  If BFL had shipped everything in November, the difficulty would be far in excess to where it is now (and even more than to where it was a month ago), thus your profitability would have declined.  Once again, the only way you scenario can be true is if you're the only one receiving a unit.  That would not have happened, therefore your premise is false.  

No, you do not understand bitcoin at all, sorry.

Told you so!

[Bicknellski]

Did you get the FCC approval?

Code:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=119351.msg1314335#msg1314335

	
Re: ACTUAL Butterfly Labs PCB pics!
November 03, 2012, 12:03:19
Reply with quote  #157
Quote from: abracadabra on November 03, 2012, 06:36:06
When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?

Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report. 

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified.  We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

[Viceroy]

Josh which testing lab do you guys use to certify your products?

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm


You probably use this one, the only one in Kansas, right?


Rogers Labs, Inc.   
Louisburg   
06/27/2016   
Scot Rogers   

4405 West 259th Terrace   
Louisburg   Kansas   66053   
United States   
rogers@micoks.net   
913-837-3214   
913-837-3214


See I looked through the 302 tests he's done and I can't seem to find any for "Butterfly Labs".  Did you certify the hardware under a different name??

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

[Bicknellski]

Josh which testing lab do you guys use to certify your products?

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm


You probably use this one, the only one in Kansas, right?


Rogers Labs, Inc.   
Louisburg   
06/27/2016   
Scot Rogers   

4405 West 259th Terrace   
Louisburg   Kansas   66053   
United States   
rogers@micoks.net   
913-837-3214   
913-837-3214


See I looked through the 302 tests he's done and I can't seem to find any for "Butterfly Labs".  Did you certify the hardware under a different name??

Guessing it failed and they buried it... easy to speculate when there is little or no 'transparency' with BFL and the COO won't even respond to the question. Seems to be a pattern with these ASIC companies in trouble they seem to think no answer is good enough.

Wouldn't it be FRAUD if he lied about the fact they were 2 weeks away from FCC approval and he never even sent it?

[k9quaint]

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

The point isn't about FCC compliance. The point is Josh claimed they were getting FCC compliance on devices that did not exist in November of 2012 (the chips had not arrived from the fab yet, let alone be bumped, packaged, and put on a board). Then, after someone noticed this huge disparity between what Josh was claiming in November and what reality was showing in January, he has since refused to answer any questions about it or even discuss it in any way.

Don't forget, this was before BFL discovered that the original Jalapeno form factor would not work. It was also before they got their boards to work right.
So there is no way they could have had a working device to send to the FCC. But his statement sure made it sound like BFL had sent working devices. Here is Inaba's statement about it:

When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?

Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified.  We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Josh which testing lab do you guys use to certify your products?

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm


You probably use this one, the only one in Kansas, right?


Rogers Labs, Inc.   
Louisburg   
06/27/2016   
Scot Rogers   

4405 West 259th Terrace   
Louisburg   Kansas   66053   
United States   
rogers@micoks.net   
913-837-3214   
913-837-3214


See I looked through the 302 tests he's done and I can't seem to find any for "Butterfly Labs".  Did you certify the hardware under a different name??

Guessing it failed and they buried it... easy to speculate when there is little or no 'transparency' with BFL.

Wouldn't it be FRAUD if he lied about the fact they were 2 weeks away from FCC approval and he never even sent it?

It doesn't matter if it failed or past. It would show up as being in the queue to be inspected as if you or I submitted some device tomorrow, by Wednesday it will be available on the FCC site for all to see. Frankly, I don't see how the FCC can get away with their full disclosure/transparency practices.

[Red_Wolf_2]

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Hows this for a theory:
Original board sent off for certification, then BFL discover they have to redesign anyway. Cancels request for testing to be performed.
That makes what Josh said true, however the end result is a device not certified. Makes sense given the revisions the devices were going through at the time. To add FCC certification back in further down the track would have resulted in a further delay which would have meant being raked over the coals for another Two Week delay.