BitBet incorrectly declares yes to a no bet. Stay Away from BitBet!!

[integrity42]

The guy wants you to think every detail are performance. The bet specifically refers to advertised performance. The bet even mentions what performance is, 400 GH/s for less than 400W. And it has been delivered.

What world do you live in? The bet says '400Gh Unit 400W'  This means:

A) A 400Gh unit must exist.
B) It hashes under 400W.

- A 400Gh unit does not exist. The hardware 'unit' as advertised only does 365Gh. Therefore the bet is a no. 

Not sure how much simpler this can be?  I'm racking my brain but having trouble explaining in simpler english.

[dexX7]

Edit: post #35

The first question to be answered here is not "do the given circumstances meet the conditions as stated in the bet", but something else I'll address right away.

First off, the circumstances:

1. Bet terms:

Devices must meet advertised performance (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W) in order to be accepted as valid.

2. punin's statement:

Our preliminary tests show that the boards are falling a bit short on hashrate. This might be due to differences between wafers, immature software or SPI issues. Because we are in a hurry to ship, you win: I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit.

3. MP's statement:

14:25:31 fractal: http://bitbet.us/bet/520/bitfury-eu-august-orders-will-ship-before-1st/
14:25:34 ozbot: BitBet - Bitfury EU August orders will ship before 1st September 2013
14:25:42 fractal: what if they ship 2 units to make up for lower hashrates?
14:25:56 fractal: is the bet yes or no?
14:26:52 mircea_popescu: (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W)
14:28:23 mircea_popescu: fractal seems pretty clear cut neh ?
14:28:40 fractal: mircea_popescu: just double checking.
...
14:34:26 fractal: right. well that bet seems like a sure thing for the NO side based on this post from bitfury stating it will miss performance numbers ... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=250249.msg3014225#msg3014225
14:34:43 fractal: i guess we'll see in a few days
14:34:46 mircea_popescu: it's mostly his money on the yes anyway, afaik, so what can i tell you.

4. The bet was resolved as "Yes":

Bet outcome: Yes
Even if not a very clear cut case, all technicalities aside the bet was substantially delivered upon.

There are no terms defined by BitBet how the outcome of a bet will be determined and obviously there is no definition of a "unit" given, thus all "facts" are no facts, but a subjective interpretation.

The following addresses that:

14:32:06 fractal: so in general, if there is some ambiguity to the bet language, users trust the site to make the correct decision, based on previous fairness?
14:32:32 mircea_popescu: pretty much.
14:32:55 mircea_popescu: some users get pissed off with the eventual results on occasion, but what can you do.

Basically this translates to "BitBet has the last word".


Thus I think this discussion shouldn't focus on subjective interpretations, but on the question: "does BitBet has the right to rule?"

[integrity42]

Betting when one is certain of the outcome is morally wrong unless the other party agrees knowing you are certain.
This can clearly not be the case for everyone who bet before the forum post in question.
So, I'm not at all sympathetic, as he basically tried to steal from the other betters.

The BitBet FAQ Clearly states that "Bets will not be cancelled because it became impossible for one side to win."   Bettors acknowledge this risk before betting.

I take offense to this statement that I was trying to 'steal' from other bettors.  You come across as a serious prick throwing accusations around like that.

Furthurmore, based on punin's statements, and others, it's clear that a Unit is whatever fits on 1M-board, plugged into a Raspberry Pi... Though I don't expect you to acknowledge this.... it's usually crickets when one's pride is damaged... It takes an honest and virtuous man to admit when they're wrong.

[b!z]

That's the problem with sites like these. There will always be those who agree and disgree on judgements.

[pajak666]

This bet is a big NO NO!
The unit did not meet requirements.
Unit is a standalone miner, which hashes max 365 GH/s not 400 GH/s as stated in bet
If they would produce M boards with 17 slots they would meet the requirements.
Otherwise bet is a NO resolution.
You can't actually buy something from punin which will hash more than 365 GH/s... DUCY?

[integrity42]

This x 100.
Luke-Jr seems to think that an extra 'board' is an H-card,... but doesn't understand that you can't fit more then 16 H-cards in a single unit.
A single unit does 365Gh.

2 Units != 1 Unit.

[klondike_bar]

This bet is a big NO NO!
The unit did not meet requirements.
Unit is a standalone miner, which hashes max 365 GH/s not 400 GH/s as stated in bet
If they would produce M boards with 17 slots they would meet the requirements.
Otherwise bet is a NO resolution.
You can't actually buy something from punin which will hash more than 365 GH/s... DUCY?

The cards underpreform due to manufacturing methods, not the chips or design. the next batch is expected to work perfectly, and some cards in this batch CAN run >25ghash each, ohers can't

They met all customer promises: they shipped >400GHash to a customer who ordered it, even if a few extra boards were needed to do so. (BFL is shipping thier 'Units' one at a time, several weeks/months apart)

This thread reeks of 'sore-loser', and in my mind the company delivered on every promise: minimum hashrate for an ordered product, maximum power consumption, and delivering in the month of august. (which i might add is the most important factor of the bet IMO). They delivered on time and every customer is satisfied (save for a few technical errors in rare cases). Focusing on the definition of a 'Unit' is pulling at hairs

[deizel]

Our preliminary tests show that the boards are falling a bit short on hashrate. This might be due to differences between wafers, immature software or SPI issues. Because we are in a hurry to ship, you win: I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit.

"Devices must meet advertised performance (400 GH/s unit)" - did they? No, not yet. ^

[integrity42]

Our preliminary tests show that the boards are falling a bit short on hashrate. This might be due to differences between wafers, immature software or SPI issues. Because we are in a hurry to ship, you win: I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit.

This..

400Gh was not delivered in one unit.  The bet specifically mentions the word 'unit', as in 'a 400Gh unit must exist'.  The 400Gh unit was 365Gh, therefore the unit, as advertised, does not meet performance specs.  Shipping more hardware does not change this requirement in the bet language.

The bet is therefore a no.

[integrity42]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=240677.0

pankakke nothing but a paid shill for BitBet...

[dexX7]

I have to relativize my statement above further in favor to BitBet, because I realized that they shipped an additional board, not "two mining machines". (Edit: further clarification #39)

I define the term "unit" as "mining machine" in this context and the bet stated further "must meet advertised performance", which was met, due to their power consumption being below 1 W / 1 GH/s with a combined hashrate of more than 25 GH/s / 400 GH/s in one unit.

Why is that? If a "unit" would be defined as "H-board", a 400 GH/s hasher would be "16 units", which is not the case in the bet terms. Thus the term "unit" is not related to the number of H-boards.

[deizel]

.. because I realized that they shipped an additional board, not "two mining machines".

According to website description of the 25GH Miner with 1 hashing board:

Modular design expandable to 16 hash boards for total of 400GHash/s

So for people ordering the 400GH Miner with 16 hashing boards, where do they put the 17th+ hashing board(s)?

It would seem the situation is more like this:

• Miner 1: RPi -> Masterboard -> 16 x 16-chip hashing board (365 GH/s)
• Miner 2: RPi -> Masterboard -> n x 16-chip hashing board

Would the Bitcoin network see this as one "mining machine", or two?

This is what I got yesterday:

[Anduck]

Nobody ever declared "unit" to be 1 m-board with 16 h-boards. Or "unit" to be 1 m-board with 1 h-board. The bet wording clearly means unit as the kit. Unit can be a group of smaller units. And it wasn't about the amount of hardware or hardware specs, it was about the performance of the unit/kit.

[dexX7]

So for people ordering the 400GH Miner with 16 hashing boards, where do they put the 17th+ hashing board(s)?

Totally got your point, though my argumentation is not based on "a unit is a mining machine", but "a unit is not defined by the number of boards".

[integrity42]

Well yeah it's obviously about the performance (as explicitly stated in the bet), not the number of boards, no one cares. They even outperformed!

I lost money in the bet but seing fractal/hypocrisy42/? cry about it makes my heart warm.

This whole thread is just for you. xoxo.

[Anenome5]

Next time don't do a combo performance + ship date. It should be ship date only, and if you want to bet on performance, bet on that separately.

[integrity42]

Nobody ever declared "unit" to be 1 m-board with 16 h-boards. Or "unit" to be 1 m-board with 1 h-board. The bet wording clearly means unit as the kit. Unit can be a group of smaller units. And it wasn't about the amount of hardware or hardware specs, it was about the performance of the unit/kit.

This is incorrect. punin himself considers 1M-board with 16H-cards to be called a unit, as can be seen by the posts in this thread.

So, you're totally wrong.

A unit, as advertised, was 1M-board, with 1-Raspberry-pu with 16H-cards connected to it.   This unit does 365Gh.  Therefore the unit did not meet performance specs, therefore the bet is a NO.

There's already rumours that you bribed BitBet for them to make the bet a yes, considering that the yes outcome flies in the face of logic.

[integrity42]

So for people ordering the 400GH Miner with 16 hashing boards, where do they put the 17th+ hashing board(s)?

Totally got your point, though my argumentation is not based on "a unit is a mining machine", but "a unit is not defined by the number of boards".

A mining machine (or unit) is a Raspberry-Pi, connected to an M-board.  The M-board can have a maximum of 16H-cards plugged into it.

This mining machine, as advertised here, http://www.bitfurystrikesback.com/product/400gh-miner-october-2013/ , clearly shows that this is what was advertised.

The bet says the unit must perform as advertised. At least 400Gh, and under 400W.  It met the wattage requirement, but did not meet the hashrate requirement. 

The 400Gh unit only does 365Gh.  Therefore it did not meet performance requirements, therefore the bet is a NO.

[integrity42]

If only he was good at trolling, I would respect him a bit, but that one is so bad at it .

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=240677.0
unfortunately you're the only troll around here.

[Anduck]

Next time don't do a combo performance + ship date. It should be ship date only, and if you want to bet on performance, bet on that separately.