Topic: [Archive] BFL trolling museum - page 57. (Read 69394 times)
Pay attention to the micro expression before saying that "shipping" products, looks down and pauses ...
General:
Why aren't we seeing some of the "pissed of preorder costumers" filing a case against BFL?
--> I know.... its greed to get a unit before others.
What i can't understand is why someone would order from them in the first place (especially now with al the delays) ....
Secondly i hope that old FPGA customers come to there senses, that sending in their precious units is highly risky ...
To Chips:
If we know the ip core we enable others to hitchhike on the asic train to release real competition
US consumer complaints https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en
Then go to your state Attorney General and File a compliant.
Note: If you do this and say something about expect the BFL kool aid crew to troll you and your ignore button to be the color of mine.
I Called most of this crap months ago, They are now Really close to having to comply with this
From FTC http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/products/pro28.shtm
Quote
Shopping by Phone or Mail
Produced in cooperation with the Direct Marketing Association and AARP
Shopping by phone or mail is a convenient alternative to shopping at a store. The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Mail or Telephone Order Rule covers merchandise your order by mail, telephone, computer, and fax machine.
Mail or Telephone Order Rule
By law, a company should ship your order within the time stated in its ads. If no time is promised, the company should ship your order within 30 days after receiving it.
If the company is unable to ship within the promised time, they must give you an “option notice.” This notice gives you the choice of agreeing to the delay or canceling your order and receiving a prompt refund.
There is one exception to the 30-day Rule: if a company doesn’t promise a shipping time, and you are applying for credit to pay for your purchase, the company has 50 days to ship after receiving your order.
Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)
You’re protected by the FCBA when you use your credit card to pay for purchases.
Billing Errors
If you find an error on your credit or charge card statement, you may dispute the charge and withhold payment on the disputed amount while the charge is in dispute. The error might be a charge for the wrong amount, for something you did not accept, or for an item that was not delivered as agreed. Of course, you still must pay any part of the bill that is not in dispute, including finance charges on the undisputed amount.
If you decide to dispute a charge:
Write to the creditor at the address indicated on the monthly statement for “billing inquiries.” Include your name, address, credit card number, and a description of the billing error.
Send your letter in a timely fashion. It must reach the creditor within 60 days after the first bill containing the error was mailed to you.
The creditor must acknowledge your complaint in writing within 30 days after receiving it, unless the problem has been resolved. The creditor must resolve the dispute within two billing cycles (but not more than 90 days) after receiving your letter.
Unsatisfactory Goods or Services
You also may dispute charges for unsatisfactory goods or services. To take advantage of this protection regarding the quality of goods or services, you must:
have made the purchase in your home state or within 100 miles of your current billing address. The charge must be for more than $50;
make a good faith effort first to resolve the dispute with the seller. However, you are not required to use any special procedure to do so.
Note that the dollar and distance limitations don’t apply if the seller also is the card issuer or if a special business relationship exists between the seller and the card issuer.
Precautions
Before ordering by phone or mail, consider your experience with the company or its general reputation. Determine the company’s refund and return policies, the product’s availability, and the total cost of your order.
Contacts for Resolving Problems
If you have problems with mail or phone order purchases, try to resolve your dispute with the company. If that doesn’t work, the following resources may be helpful:
State and local consumer protection offices. Contact the offices in your home state and where the company is located.
Postal Inspectors. Call your local post office and ask for the Inspector-in-Charge.
Reducing Direct Marketing Solicitations
You may want to have your name removed from direct marketing lists. Be aware, however, that if you purchase goods by phone or mail after your name is removed, it may be added again. You may want to make a new request to have your name removed every few years. You also may want to ask mail or telephone order companies to retain your name on in-house lists only.
Telemarketing
The Federal Government has created the National Do Not Call Registry—the free, easy way to reduce the telemarketing calls you get at home. To register, or to get information, visit www.donotcall.gov, or call 1-888-382-1222 from the phone you want to register. You will receive fewer telemarketing calls within three months of registering your number. It will stay in the registry for five years or until it is disconnected or you take it off the registry. After five years, you will be able to renew your registration.
Mail
The DMA Mail Preference Service lets you opt out of receiving direct mail marketing from many national companies for five years. When you register with this service, your name will be put on a “delete” file and made available to direct-mail marketers. However, your registration will not stop mailings from organizations that are not registered with the DMA’s Mail Preference Service. To register with DMA, send your letter to:
DMAchoice
Mail Preference Service
PO Box 643
Carmel, NY 10512
Or register online at www.dmachoice.org.
Email
The DMA also has an EMail Preference Service to help you reduce unsolicited commercial emails. To “opt-out” of receiving unsolicited commercial email, use DMA’s online form at www.dmachoice.org. Your online request will be effective for one year.
For More Information
The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad
Produced in cooperation with the Direct Marketing Association and AARP
Shopping by phone or mail is a convenient alternative to shopping at a store. The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Mail or Telephone Order Rule covers merchandise your order by mail, telephone, computer, and fax machine.
Mail or Telephone Order Rule
By law, a company should ship your order within the time stated in its ads. If no time is promised, the company should ship your order within 30 days after receiving it.
If the company is unable to ship within the promised time, they must give you an “option notice.” This notice gives you the choice of agreeing to the delay or canceling your order and receiving a prompt refund.
There is one exception to the 30-day Rule: if a company doesn’t promise a shipping time, and you are applying for credit to pay for your purchase, the company has 50 days to ship after receiving your order.
Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA)
You’re protected by the FCBA when you use your credit card to pay for purchases.
Billing Errors
If you find an error on your credit or charge card statement, you may dispute the charge and withhold payment on the disputed amount while the charge is in dispute. The error might be a charge for the wrong amount, for something you did not accept, or for an item that was not delivered as agreed. Of course, you still must pay any part of the bill that is not in dispute, including finance charges on the undisputed amount.
If you decide to dispute a charge:
Write to the creditor at the address indicated on the monthly statement for “billing inquiries.” Include your name, address, credit card number, and a description of the billing error.
Send your letter in a timely fashion. It must reach the creditor within 60 days after the first bill containing the error was mailed to you.
The creditor must acknowledge your complaint in writing within 30 days after receiving it, unless the problem has been resolved. The creditor must resolve the dispute within two billing cycles (but not more than 90 days) after receiving your letter.
Unsatisfactory Goods or Services
You also may dispute charges for unsatisfactory goods or services. To take advantage of this protection regarding the quality of goods or services, you must:
have made the purchase in your home state or within 100 miles of your current billing address. The charge must be for more than $50;
make a good faith effort first to resolve the dispute with the seller. However, you are not required to use any special procedure to do so.
Note that the dollar and distance limitations don’t apply if the seller also is the card issuer or if a special business relationship exists between the seller and the card issuer.
Precautions
Before ordering by phone or mail, consider your experience with the company or its general reputation. Determine the company’s refund and return policies, the product’s availability, and the total cost of your order.
Contacts for Resolving Problems
If you have problems with mail or phone order purchases, try to resolve your dispute with the company. If that doesn’t work, the following resources may be helpful:
State and local consumer protection offices. Contact the offices in your home state and where the company is located.
Postal Inspectors. Call your local post office and ask for the Inspector-in-Charge.
Reducing Direct Marketing Solicitations
You may want to have your name removed from direct marketing lists. Be aware, however, that if you purchase goods by phone or mail after your name is removed, it may be added again. You may want to make a new request to have your name removed every few years. You also may want to ask mail or telephone order companies to retain your name on in-house lists only.
Telemarketing
The Federal Government has created the National Do Not Call Registry—the free, easy way to reduce the telemarketing calls you get at home. To register, or to get information, visit www.donotcall.gov, or call 1-888-382-1222 from the phone you want to register. You will receive fewer telemarketing calls within three months of registering your number. It will stay in the registry for five years or until it is disconnected or you take it off the registry. After five years, you will be able to renew your registration.
The DMA Mail Preference Service lets you opt out of receiving direct mail marketing from many national companies for five years. When you register with this service, your name will be put on a “delete” file and made available to direct-mail marketers. However, your registration will not stop mailings from organizations that are not registered with the DMA’s Mail Preference Service. To register with DMA, send your letter to:
DMAchoice
Mail Preference Service
PO Box 643
Carmel, NY 10512
Or register online at www.dmachoice.org.
The DMA also has an EMail Preference Service to help you reduce unsolicited commercial emails. To “opt-out” of receiving unsolicited commercial email, use DMA’s online form at www.dmachoice.org. Your online request will be effective for one year.
For More Information
The FTC works to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint or get free information on consumer issues, visit ftc.gov or call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261. Watch a video, How to File a Complaint, at ftc.gov/video to learn more. The FTC enters consumer complaints into the Consumer Sentinel Network, a secure online database and investigative tool used by hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad
Will be waiting for a option notices.....
EDIT found this on the site.
Direct from the FAQ on the site which means they are already in breech of the law as of January 1st
Quote
1. What is the BitForce SC?
2. Hey, what the heck? Why'd you come out with this after I just bought a bunch of Singles. I'm going to be left behind!
3. Why should I buy a Mini Rig or Single if the BitForce SC is coming out?
4. When will the BitForce SC be available, and how fast are they?
Our ASIC based products ranging from 4.5 GH/s to 1,500 GH/s are currently scheduled for availability in November, 2012.
5. Can these devices be used for anything else like password cracking?
2. Hey, what the heck? Why'd you come out with this after I just bought a bunch of Singles. I'm going to be left behind!
3. Why should I buy a Mini Rig or Single if the BitForce SC is coming out?
4. When will the BitForce SC be available, and how fast are they?
Our ASIC based products ranging from 4.5 GH/s to 1,500 GH/s are currently scheduled for availability in November, 2012.
5. Can these devices be used for anything else like password cracking?
So they show up at CES without a single working device. Not even a Jalapeno -> not even one working ASIC chip.
Um, you never produce "one" ASIC chip. If they had one, they would have thousands, and they would have already shipped.
You never do 50 wafers with a design where you actually don't know if it's working or not. If the chips are borked you'd lose some 100K USD!
hihi, you mean BFL possibly not produce a test wafer of it's ASIC design?? right, they did not collect enough money from preorders so they were not able to finance this...
I'm not going to pull it up, but BFL has confirmed that they didn't do an MPW test run. I would guess it has nothing at all to do with money and is simply that they were confident in the original design and didn't want to wait a half a year for an MPW to finish.
So they show up at CES without a single working device. Not even a Jalapeno -> not even one working ASIC chip.
Um, you never produce "one" ASIC chip. If they had one, they would have thousands, and they would have already shipped.
You never do 50 wafers with a design where you actually don't know if it's working or not. If the chips are borked you'd lose some 100K USD!
hihi, you mean BFL possibly not produce a test wafer of it's ASIC design?? right, they did not collect enough money from preorders so they were not able to finance this...
So they show up at CES without a single working device. Not even a Jalapeno -> not even one working ASIC chip.
Um, you never produce "one" ASIC chip. If they had one, they would have thousands, and they would have already shipped.
I never said ASICs are produced by the piece.
But you can have a test wafer (with a couple hundred chips, depending on die size) that's processed with another batch (so 49 wafers of product A and 1 wafer with my test chips).
You never do 50 wafers with a design where you actually don't know if it's working or not. If the chips are borked you'd lose some 100K USD!
Quote
I feel like I'm repeating myself...
Possibly. That's why you are a troll.
So they show up at CES without a single working device. Not even a Jalapeno -> not even one working ASIC chip.
Um, you never produce "one" ASIC chip. If they had one, they would have thousands, and they would have already shipped. I feel like I'm repeating myself...
this really reminds me of tom's post that he also licensed (or something along that line...) that he also sells his chip to another company.
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
Only that Tom has no chips and never had them.
I've written that before somewhere:
The only way I think the ASIC wet dream can become true is if there actually is a working SHA-256 chip available. This would be from a third party supplier and all the current "ASIC outlets" would use in their products the same way you can buy different brands of RAM while the chips are produced at a few places around the world. They just assemble the modules.
If they finaly are released and arrive we could/should do some reverse engineering with the chips. There is a company that does that for you (They sand of the package and stuff --> http://www.chipworks.com)
The thing that strikes me with BFL/bASIC & co is that it seems they took preorders before actually sourcing the chips. The thing is there are plenty of SHA-256 ip cores available but none of those are in silicon, they are just designs. So what it seems now is that they got ahead of themselves and dreamed up a product based on a non-existing solution.
That alone would be fraudulent if it isn't a straight out scam from the beginning.
Why aren't we seeing some of the "pissed of preorder costumers" filing a case against BFL?
--> I know.... its greed to get a unit before others.
What i can't understand is why someone would order from them in the first place (especially now with al the delays) ....
Secondly i hope that old FPGA customers come to there senses, that sending in their precious units is highly risky ...
To Chips:
If we know the ip core we enable others to hitchhike on the asic train to release real competition
this really reminds me of tom's post that he also licensed (or something along that line...) that he also sells his chip to another company.
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
Only that Tom has no chips and never had them.
I've written that before somewhere:
The only way I think the ASIC wet dream can become true is if there actually is a working SHA-256 chip available. This would be from a third party supplier and all the current "ASIC outlets" would use in their products the same way you can buy different brands of RAM while the chips are produced at a few places around the world. They just assemble the modules.
If they finaly are released and arrive we could/should do some reverse engineering with the chips. There is a company that does that for you (They sand of the package and stuff --> http://www.chipworks.com)
The thing that strikes me with BFL/bASIC & co is that it seems they took preorders before actually sourcing the chips. The thing is there are plenty of SHA-256 ip cores available but none of those are in silicon, they are just designs. So what it seems now is that they got ahead of themselves and dreamed up a product based on a non-existing solution.
That alone would be fraudulent if it isn't a straight out scam from the beginning.
this really reminds me of tom's post that he also licensed (or something along that line...) that he also sells his chip to another company.
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
I could imagine Josh being pissed at Tom whether Tom stole BFL's thunder as a re-seller...or simply muscled in on a particular niche in the ecosystem of fraud.
---
By way of brainstorming about a potential vanishing act for BFL, here's a possibility: They could say that they themselves were scammed by a supplier. They were strung along and had to spend a bulk of the pre-order money. Then it turned out that the vendor was actually a scammer who was also scamming others (like Tom) and everyone should feel sorry for them after they tried poured their souls and a lot of their own money just trying to help the Bitcoin project prosper.
this really reminds me of tom's post that he also licensed (or something along that line...) that he also sells his chip to another company.
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
Only that Tom has no chips and never had them.
I've written that before somewhere:
The only way I think the ASIC wet dream can become true is if there actually is a working SHA-256 chip available. This would be from a third party supplier and all the current "ASIC outlets" would use in their products the same way you can buy different brands of RAM while the chips are produced at a few places around the world. They just assemble the modules.
If they finaly are released and arrive we could/should do some reverse engineering with the chips. There is a company that does that for you (They sand of the package and stuff --> http://www.chipworks.com)
At least they have a fancy casings, bolts, vans, parts, parts and Parts waiting to be assembled and shipped.
Would be hilarious to see some of the angry preorder (their VC's) customers at their show protesting and demanding their asic. With sings, pickaxes, forks and torches,....but well never see that cause the people who ordered, stick to their abuser (Stockholm Syndrome?).
Quote
CES interview with Josh from Butterfly Labs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZUPniBo5UQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZUPniBo5UQ
Would be hilarious to see some of the angry preorder (their VC's) customers at their show protesting and demanding their asic. With sings, pickaxes, forks and torches,....but well never see that cause the people who ordered, stick to their abuser (Stockholm Syndrome?).
this really reminds me of tom's post that he also licensed (or something along that line...) that he also sells his chip to another company.
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
Only that Tom has no chips and never had them.
I've written that before somewhere:
The only way I think the ASIC wet dream can become true is if there actually is a working SHA-256 chip available. This would be from a third party supplier and all the current "ASIC outlets" would use in their products the same way you can buy different brands of RAM while the chips are produced at a few places around the world. They just assemble the modules.
Only that Tom has no chips and never had them.
this really reminds me of tom's post that he also licensed (or something along that line...) that he also sells his chip to another company.
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
hiccups with tom = hiccups for bfl.
inaba pretends to be all pissy with tom, when actually bfl "sourced" the same "chips" to tom.
hmmmmmmm.
/tinfoil
4 minutes of bla bla bla ... the interesting part starts at 4:30 :
David Perry: "So this is just a case ... you don't actually have ASICs ready?
Josh: "Um... right ... but we are eagerly awaiting them as everybody else I'm sure ..."
(By the way: Comments are disabled for this video. I wonder why
)So they show up at CES without a single working device. Not even a Jalapeno -> not even one working ASIC chip.
This means they never had a working prototype. Never. Not even today. Their power estimates, hashrate, etc. are in no way verified. They don't even know for sure if their chips are working at all. It's all based on simulation.
Even Tom/bASIC is one step further: Tom already recognized that he was out of his depth. BFL still has to come to this realization ...
Quote
We will not be shipping on the 14th ... not sure where that rumor got started. I will have an update by then though and it should be good news along with some more information with regards to the process up to this point and some good technical information with regards to our technology that has not been released yet... it should clear up some questions with regards to the delay and some other areas people were concerned with.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/jalapeno-single-sc-support/640-shipping-january-14-not-3.html
So they are not shipping at January?
4 minutes of bla bla bla ... the interesting part starts at 4:30 :
David Perry: "So this is just a case ... you don't actually have ASICs ready?
Josh: "Um... right ... but we are eagerly awaiting them as everybody else I'm sure ..."
(By the way: Comments are disabled for this video. I wonder why
)So they show up at CES without a single working device. Not even a Jalapeno -> not even one working ASIC chip.
This means they never had a working prototype. Never. Not even today. Their power estimates, hashrate, etc. are in no way verified. They don't even know for sure if their chips are working at all. It's all based on simulation.
Even Tom/bASIC is one step further: Tom already recognized that he was out of his depth. BFL still has to come to this realization ...
I watched the video. The point was that basically they took a device with a screen and put it in an empty box. WOW!
EMPTY BOX WITH SCREEN = ASIC
lolThis reminds me of my 'Geiger counter' app. It just shows more action when it is tilted. Loads of fun. Looks pretty realistic, and I made up some story about how 'the CCD can detect a variety of artifacts which impact the electromagnetic spectra and statistical analysis of these using the phone's cpu...blah,blah,blah' which was good enough to fool most of my PhD holding friends. For a while until my grin gave the game away.
I think that BFL might be well advised to get an 'Asian benefactor' in order to gain some traction in getting something performs sha256 out the door. Tom of b[ye]ASIC might know where to look. Clearly BFL is having a rough time of it on their own.
More seriously, I am now wondering how BFL will perform their (and the pre-order funds) vanishing act. Tom can just blame the mystery Asians if refunds are not forthcoming. I guess the easiest way out for BFL is to just follow Tom's act directly...it actually seems so far that it may be relatively workable.
TRANSLATION: "HEY GAIZ HERE IS MY ASIC DEMO. I HAVE A EMPTY CARDBOARD BOX WITH A SMALL TV SCREEN INSIDE TO MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY"
You've seen the video, you know that is a Nexus 7 with mining software.
The new cgminer drivers I've written (and all future ones) are currently libusb - a single library with no contention issues between drivers or timing issues - not the old crappy serial-USB that causes a bunch of problems due to using different libraries for each USB type and removing miner features on windows.
The serial-USB drivers were chosen by the cgminer clone guy coz they seemed easy to use ... not coz they were best to use.
Unfortunately it seems that the ASIC hardware people are still under the impression that serial-USB is best - ignoring advantages like isochronous USB transfers, and sticking to the old USB I/O chips coz they can be used with the simple serial I/O ...
Edit: oh yeah - also it was last October that someone first demo'd cgminer running on a nexus.
Edit2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9hBRljvZPI
TRANSLATION: "HEY GAIZ HERE IS MY ASIC DEMO. I HAVE A EMPTY CARDBOARD BOX WITH A SMALL TV SCREEN INSIDE TO MAKE IT LOOK PRETTY"
You've seen the video, you know that is a Nexus 7 with mining software.
I watched the video. The point was that basically they took a device with a screen and put it in an empty box. WOW!
EMPTY BOX WITH SCREEN = ASIC
lolJump to: