BFL ASIC is bogus

[Inaba]

I repeat:  What the fuck are you talking about?  If you need to, please pay someone to translate your mad ramblings into English.

[1714607127]

1714607127

[1714607127]

1714607127

[1714607127]

1714607127

[ElectricMucus]

sdfffgs*

grammar nazi much?

[Korbman]

I repeat:  What the fuck are you talking about?  If you need to, please pay someone to translate your mad ramblings into English.

Though I wasn't paid, I have translated his ramblings, poor sentence structure, and grammatical errors to this English version:

"Inaba, my good sir, even though your current presumption on the power efficiency of new ASIC products is quite noteworthy, there are doubters within our community based on previous data. I predict you will be crafting a clever response to the accusations of poor power efficiency in previous BFL products. How do you respond?"

[Inaba]

I think you are mistranslating it.  He was clearly speaking of past tense, not future tense, so again, we have no idea what he's trying to say.

[Korbman]

I think you are mistranslating it.  He was clearly speaking of past tense, not future tense, so again, we have no idea what he's trying to say.

Hmm..could be quite right here. I'm a little rusty on my "Incoherent Babbling to English" translation skills. If only Google Translate could help...

[runeks]

At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I, too, agree with this bet.

Can someone please quote this to act as a witness? Thank you.

Nice betting with you Inaba. I better buy the coins now to lock in the price .

Umm..what? Let me get this straight..
Runeks is betting that the chip won't meet a certain power efficiency.
Inaba...who is employed by ButterflyLabs...disagrees.
A bet ensues, with 500:1 odds that Runeks' statement is correct?

Why the hell would you bet the person WHO WORKS FOR THE COMPANY that their OWN PRODUCT won't meet your ideals?

Am I missing something?

MrTeal summed up the situation nicely. But the reason I made the bet can be stated in even simpler terms:

I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.

[Korbman]

I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.

Couple of things here..
1) Is there any math behind this or is it just a random number you thought of? I get that's where the 500:1 odds come in, but I was wondering if there's anything to back up the claim.
2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"

Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?

[runeks]

I estimate the probability of BFL not meeting their 350 Mhash/Joule target to be greater than 0.2%.

Couple of things here..
1) Is there any math behind this or is it just a random number you thought of? I get that's where the 500:1 odds come in, but I was wondering if there's anything to back up the claim.

I just figure with them missing their previous target, a 0.2% chance that they'll miss their current one is pretty low. But of course there's no way to know this for sure. The 500:1 was really just a random number I thought of in order to prove my point that without knowing the odds of a bet, there's no way to know if it is a good bet or not. I didn't think anyone would accept that bet.

With regards to profitability, the 0.2% probability comes from the odds, which are 500:1. If I place a bet saying that an event will occur, and I get 500:1 odds, then if that event happens more often than 0.2% of the time I will be profitable in the long run.

Let's say the event happens 0.3% of the time. Then 997 out of 1000 times I will lose 1 unit, and 3 out of 1000 times I will win 500 units. That's an average profit of 3*500-997=503 units per 1000 bets.

2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"

Well, I don't know the probability as such, but I estimate that it's less than 99.8% of them meeting the target.

Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?

No. Without knowing the odds there's no way to know if it would be profitable. If, however, the odds are greater than 500:1, I would take the bet, as it would be profitable in the long run (see previous example).

All of this actually started from a comment I made regarding the bet on betsofbitcoin, where my point was that without knowing the odds there's no way to know if the bet is good or not.

[Korbman]

I just figure with them missing their previous target, a 0.2% chance that they'll miss their current one is pretty low. But of course there's no way to know this for sure. The 500:1 was really just a random number I thought of in order to prove my point that without knowing the odds of a bet, there's no way to know if it is a good bet or not. I didn't think anyone would accept that bet.

With regards to profitability, the 0.2% probability comes from the odds, which are 500:1. If I place a bet saying that an event will occur, and I get 500:1 odds, then if that event happens more often than 0.2% of the time I will be profitable in the long run.

Let's say the event happens 0.3% of the time. Then 997 out of 1000 times I will lose 1 unit, and 3 out of 1000 times I will win 500 units. That's an average profit of 3*500-997=503 units per 1000 bets.

2) You're estimating that the probability of BFL not meeting their target is greater than 0.2%? That's saying the probability of BFL meeting their goals is less than or equal to 99.8%. So you're saying that you have no idea what the chances are...but you figure you'll cover almost the entire spectrum by stating "greater than 0.2%"

Well, I don't know the probability as such, but I estimate that it's less than 99.8% of them meeting the target.

Say I went into a casino. I walk up to a game that says the odds of winning aren't known, but there is up to a 99.8% you'll lose. Would you really play that game?

No. Without knowing the odds there's no way to know if it would be profitable. If, however, the odds are greater than 500:1, I would take the bet, as it would be profitable in the long run (see previous example).

All of this actually started from a comment I made regarding the bet on betsofbitcoin, where my point was that without knowing the odds there's no way to know if the bet is good or not.

Haha yeah, I get it and all. And at least the loss (if you do indeed lose of course) won't be substantial in your case.

Runeks...you're silly 

[CJGoodings]

I see somebody pulling a Matthew in the near future.

[Inaba]

Good of you to admit it early so no one bets with you.

[CJGoodings]

Real cute, how old are you? 5?

[Inaba]

It's about as cute as you going around trolling threads with your bullshit that you can't back up, so meh.  Go on, lets hear how you cry about things you have absolutely no idea about.  I love to hear you cry and whine and pitch a fit.

[CJGoodings]

Its not bullshit if half the community feels the same way i do.

PS. WAAHHHHHHHH

[Inaba]

Well there you go... it's not half the community and the only way it would "feel the same way you do" is if half of them lived in their parents basement and had an orange saq.

Go on, back up what you say.  I'll take anything.. give me one small fact that you have to back up anything you've said.

I predict from you: WAAAAAAAAA

[CJGoodings]

Thats fine, be ignorant, only shows how retarded the pr fuckhead of bfl really is.

[Inaba]

Haha nailed it.  "I know you are, but what am I!"

[CJGoodings]

Take a pick, theres plenty of threads already out there. All calling out bfl for what it really is, enough "small facts" for you to choose from.

[Inaba]

Waaaaaa!  I can't back up anything I say so you go do my job for me!  WAAAAAAAAA!

[CJGoodings]

Dont cry big baby. Your bawlz will drop soon enough.

Using this thread as an example, when people where mentioning everything possibly wrong with your "products" specs, you were nowhere to be found, nor a single response defending your case to date.