[SOLD] Unused BFL Single, Revision 3, 300BTC delivered in USA

[reeses]

x

[JWU42]

Do we know for sure that BFL warranty is transferable?

[Littleshop]

Do we know for sure that BFL warranty is transferable?

By US federal law and FTC regulations, they would have to make an explicit statement of limitation if this were the case.

IANAL

Nothing like that is required under federal law for devices considered commercial.  Most people would consider a BFL a commercial device, not a consumer device. 

[Littleshop]

Do we know for sure that BFL warranty is transferable?

By US federal law and FTC regulations, they would have to make an explicit statement of limitation if this were the case.

IANAL

Nothing like that is required under federal law for devices considered commercial.  Most people would consider a BFL a commercial device, not a consumer device. 

YANAL.

Consumer means "for personal use" and not a buyer for resale.  BFL could try to split hairs on this, but they'd lose. 

IANAL and YANAL

This has nothing to do with resale and wholesale.  Commercial items, (think items used in business, printing presses, restaurant equipment, office copiers) are not covered by the federal warranty act at all.  You could argue that a BFL could be used at home, but YOU WOULD LOSE if you were trying to say that it would have to be covered by the federal warranty act. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson%E2%80%93Moss_Warranty_Act

"A "consumer product" is generally any tangible personal property for sale and that is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes."

 

[JWU42]

SO... the bigger questions is who will pay 300BTC 

[OgNasty]

I'd go 150.

[dirtycat]

you should do a raffle! 

[Fiyasko]

lol why do people keep typing (letter)ANAL

you should do a raffle! 

RAFFLE!!!!!!!!!

[legolouman]

I feel like I'm missing something. Why 300 BTC for a $600 USD product?

[dirtycat]

I feel like I'm missing something. Why 300 BTC for a $600 USD product?

OP addressed that in.. section "1)"

*note in section "2)" OP does not guarantee it is operational..

anyone willing to pay that much for a possibly non working single (or working) is... whats the word.. oh ya stupid!

[Epoch]

Asking $1400 for a $600 product is beyond ridiculous; merely suggesting it is a good way of losing whatever respect you may have here. The 'reasons' you give in (1) are ludicrous.

And in case people aren't aware, BFL Singles have no serial number or other identifying markings on them. The only way BFL has of knowing whether a unit is in or out of warranty is their record of when they sold what to who. If you buy one 2nd/3rd hand and call up BFL saying the unit has a problem or is DOA, BFL has no record that they ever sold anything to you. They have no way of knowing how old your unit is. So if you can't prove it is within warranty, you are SOL.

[copumpkin]

The unit has been sold.

To Shakaru?

[Qoheleth]

No, he sent me a gpg-signed message saying he was not shakaru.

I don't understand how this proves anything.

[jamesg]

No, he sent me a gpg-signed message saying he was not shakaru.

I don't understand how this proves anything.

As long as he sent the BTC......

[copumpkin]

No, he sent me a gpg-signed message saying he was not shakaru.

I don't understand how this proves anything.

Here, I'll show you:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I, copumpkin, am not shakaru.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=OGrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

And now you have a cryptographic proof that I am not shakaru. Did that help? I can go into the math behind GPG if you'd like, but most people aren't terribly interested in crypto

[JusticeForYou]

No, he sent me a gpg-signed message saying he was not shakaru.

I don't understand how this proves anything.

Here, I'll show you:

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I, copumpkin, am not shakaru.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
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=OGrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

And now you have a cryptographic proof that I am not shakaru. Did that help? I can go into the math behind GPG if you'd like, but most people aren't terribly interested in crypto

This should come back as Good Unknown Trust.
Which it did.

Others could sign copumpkins gpg key without ever meeting or knowing him just to prove that the <nick> is the copumpkin that we know and love but not his actual identity.

Be aware though, unless the gpg key is signed by others that you are known to trust. It is possible that an entity created another public key with a different identity. So unsigned public keys should only be used to lock someone into a <nick>, not an actual identity.

Signing someones key usually means that they have met them IRL. Or an authority has signed it, like verisign, work, government, or some other entity.

I find this concept really interesting. An unknown physical identity doesn't need to be known but a known <nick> can be used as an identity for transaction and that alt nick takes on an identity of itself and treated as a real identity.

Sorry for the rant.

[mila]

I find this concept really interesting. An unknown physical identity doesn't need to be known but a known <nick> can be used as an identity for transaction and that alt nick takes on an identity of itself and treated as a real identity.

pity he's not using otc web of trust with that key. that would help to see if he used it in other trades or not
(since it's sold I assume it's safe now to hijack the thread with the issue of signing other people keys)
https://www.xkcd.com/364/ is the new topic in executive summary format ; )

[Qoheleth]

Others could sign copumpkins gpg key without ever meeting or knowing him just to prove that the <nick> is the copumpkin that we know and love but not his actual identity.

Be aware though, unless the gpg key is signed by others that you are known to trust. It is possible that an entity created another public key with a different identity. So unsigned public keys should only be used to lock someone into a <nick>, not an actual identity.

Signing someones key usually means that they have met them IRL. Or an authority has signed it, like verisign, work, government, or some other entity.

Ah, okay. The web-of-trust component is what I was missing; I'm used to thinking of keys as being self-signed. Makes sense now.

[copumpkin]

I find this concept really interesting. An unknown physical identity doesn't need to be known but a known <nick> can be used as an identity for transaction and that alt nick takes on an identity of itself and treated as a real identity.

pity he's not using otc web of trust with that key. that would help to see if he used it in other trades or not
(since it's sold I assume it's safe now to hijack the thread with the issue of signing other people keys)
https://www.xkcd.com/364/ is the new topic in executive summary format ; )

How am I not?

Code:

gpg: Signature made Mon Apr 16 15:01:51 2012 EDT using RSA key ID 9280FBD6
gpg: Good signature from "copumpkin <pumpkin@me.com>"
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: C275 212F 15F2 9AB8 FB97  E5F5 1AF9 2946 9280 FBD6

and check my key ID at http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=copumpkin

[copumpkin]

Ah, okay. The web-of-trust component is what I was missing; I'm used to thinking of keys as being self-signed. Makes sense now.

Yeah, but the whole thing was just me and reeses trolling. It's obviously not possible to cryptographically prove that you're not someone