Topic: 280 BTC total bets between Micon and mrb (are BFL ASICs real?) - page 29. (Read 46415 times)

It's a .NET app and will run under Mono on Linux and Mac OS X.

Note: the print and save buttons in the escrow tools won't do anything.  Just copy and paste the codes via the clipboard into somewhere safe.

Cool idea, casascius, I am a crypto nerd and I love the concept, but btcaddress-alpha is a Windows app and I don't run Windows (and don't want to)

I'd be willing to serve as an escrow agent using Cryptographic Escrow.  This would result in an arrangement where I never touch the funds, and don't have to do anything to release unless there's a stalemate and the two of you refuse to release funds to the winner.  Best of all, no fee.  Benefit for me is publicity for an idea that everyone should know about.

Simply send me or link me to your PGP public keys, and I'll send you each an "escrow invitation code".  (crypto details: they're a pair from a matched set: I create integers/private keys x and y, one person gets a string encoding x and Gy, the other person gets y and Gx)

Once received, you can use my utility at https://casascius.com/btcaddress-alpha.zip to generate a "payment invitation".  (It doesn't matter who does it, but one person must generate the invitation, send it to the other, and the other person keep a copy and verify it results in the same bitcoin address since the eventual winner will also need it to unlock the funds).  (crypto details: the payment invitation encodes a third integer/private key, z.  The escrowed address is Gxyz and its private key is the product xyz, everyone is missing exactly one factor so nobody can calculate the private key unless the missing factor is released their way by one of the other parties.)

Once you have agreed that you are both looking at the same address, and that you have safely saved your escrow invitation and payment invitation codes, each of you pay your bet to that address.

When the time comes, the loser should send his original escrow invitation (the code I sent them) to the winner.  With it, the winner can calculate the private key and collect the bet.  Whoever has both escrow invitation codes plus the payment invitation (all 3 parts) can get the private key.

If the loser won't send the code, I'll have both escrow invitations, and can send both to the person I determine is the winner.

Voorhees declined to serve as the escrow (I contacted him by email). I am going to ask nanotube or a few other persons.

Man, I'd love to see you guys top off that other 5000 BTC bet a while. Okay, I realize it's not probable, but maybe to the tune of 200 BTC and there will be more interest.

Micon,

About BlackPrapor's sig... he was one of the first FPGA MiniRig orders. The FPGA lot all shipped a while back. BFL has been fairly good to some who ordered back at the beginning of 2012. BP, are you in the black yet? By my calculations you should be.

The other signatures you see are leftover from a weekly drawing on the BFL forum that has run its course. People are just being lazy about changing it to something else.

If you'd like a primer on BFL's history PM me and I'll do my best to answer your questions.

What? ... June 30, 2013? For the 'upcoming' products announced on June 16, 2012? Are you nuts?

I can report too, if you want. With photos and videos etc.

Same here.

I'm on the first round of pre-order deliveries. I'll volunteer to report in if y'all think I'm worthy enough.

Ok, I agree to at least a 10 btc bet on these statements. But we need to clarify one of them:


BFL equipment is reported to what? (Words are missing):
a) to have been merely received by 10+ members, with the Mhash/Joule personally confirmed by at least 1 of them
b) to have been received, and to have the Mhash/Joule personally confirmed by all of them

a) is too weak. b) is too strong. Even to this day, after almost 1 year of sales of the BFL Single FPGA, I don't believe one can find 10+ good standing forum members having personally posted their measured Mhash/Joule. Maybe only a handful did (I was one of them), yet the whole community recognizes the ~10 Mhash/Joule performance as legitimate... What about making the statement:

c) BFL equipment reported to have been received by 10+ good standing forum members, of which:
- 3 must have each personally measured the Mhash/Joule of the devices
- the other 7 may not have necessarily measured the Mhash/Joule, but must have provided reports of having received working devices that seem to validate the existence and plausibility of the devices belonging to the above 3

I too believe that it will be pretty obvious who of the two of us wins the bet. (It will not be a close call and come down to "only 9 users reported working devices, not 10, you loose!"). However, I don't think we are going to be able to round up 10 willing appointees, for the simple reason that not many care about our bet. So do we need to strongly define "good standing" members?

In the very unlikely scenario where the outcome of the bet is ambiguous or unclear (eg. either fewer or more than 10 reports are available, depending on who you consider to be a "good standing" member, and the Bitcoin community itself is somewhat divided on who of the reporters are trusted members), if you and I cannot come to an agreed outcome, I promise I will be a gentleman and offer to cancel the wager :-)

Bowjob: arrange the details with Micon directly. I want to interface with only 1 person to simplify things. I would of course match both of you at 11 btc total. In fact I would want to bet a lot more if possible.

Can I join on this bet? I'll add 1 BTC to Micon's side.

mrb - thank you for taking the time to reply in detail, and for the metrics on Mhash/Joule vs. the technology type.

I am comfortable making a 10 coin bet with the following terms:

-- BFL equipment is reported to by 10+ "good standing" forum members (I do not believe determining "good standing" will be very hard, and I doubt this bet comes down to "no those were shills reporting hardware" - I think the writing will be on the wall on the date our bet settles.  Also, it may be prudent to appoint 10 confirmed members that all have publicly stated they have placed a pre-order that we can both believe are in no way connected to BFL or would shill for them)

-- 7/1/2013 as the settle date for when 10+ Forum members must have rec'd their pre-ordered BFL ASICs

-- And that BFL achieves 350+ Mhash/Joule on the devices shipped

-- proper escrow decided - I'm good with Vorhees, any1 from bitpay or bitinstant, Jon Matonis, Charlie Shrem

Watching NFL with my beautiful 2 week old daughter today, will check this thread a few times, get a 10 coin bet down at least to get things started

tytyty to mrb for being a complete gentleman going about making this wager.  This is how it feels when I interact with my close poker friends - where both sides act like gentlemen as you decide the terms of a wager.  Not this movie-conjured image of "Lets bet!  you are scared??  ok Pay up on this technicality!!"    Clear terms established at the start make for a fun wager for both the eventual winner and eventual loser - both expectations are properly managed.  The injustices you may see me fight against all involve the mis-management of another human's expectations.

Well shit, they did major fuckups in the past, gotta give them some slack, you know, so the bet at least has a chance...

The within 10% of performance is what annoys me.

Heres a wonderful opportunity for all the pre March belivers.

http://bitbet.us/bet/7/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-march-1st/

If I understand right, it is 10 trusted members claiming to have received bfl asic by June 1 2013 with reported performance 15+ times that of FPGAs.

Trusted members include people like Gigavps who have a pre-ordered early.

That means that you are not certain that it is a scam.

I am not sure I can put a date on "shipping all pre-orders". I am not even sure they will do that by the end of the year(!) as I believe they will run into numerous issues trying to bring the production back from Asia to the US (they claim they want to do that). Anyway I digress... Instead, I would rather bet on something like "at least 4-5 reasonably trusted forum users will report receiving working units by 7/1/2013, and performing at X Mhash/Joule". (Mhash/Joule is equivalent to Mhash/s per Watt). We do need to add this power efficiency metric as it would be unfair for me to win the bet if BFL ships, say, "FPGAs branded as ASICs" completely missing their power estimates.

For reference:
- BFL singles do 10 Mhash/Joule
- BFL minirigs do 20 Mhash/Joule
- All FPGA mining devices do about 20-24 Mhash/Joule as they are all Spartan6-LX150 based
- ASIC vendors have estimated anything from 238 to 1000 Mhash/Joule (BFL claims 1000)

I would put the threshold for our bet at around 200 Mhash/Joule, sufficiently high to prove it is an ASIC. But I have offered 350 Mhash/Joule on betsofbitco.in, so I would go with that for the sake of being fair to you.

You claim the entire BFL ASIC operation is a scam, so my wager details proposed above would make you win, if that was the case. I can draft a document based on these details if you mostly agree with them. We will also need to define corner cases (such as who is a "reasonably trusted forum member", perhaps any forum account created before June 24, 2012, ie. before BFL announced ASICs)