Topic: BFL ASIC is bogus - page 5. (Read 22392 times)

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.

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

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?

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%.

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...

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.

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?"

sdfffgs*

grammar nazi much?

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

Relativation of claims on power efficency.

I'm sure you'll come up with a knit-witted response that you are not, go ahead... more back-peddeling commericing in 3, 2, 1...

Back peddling on what?

I'm sorry I just couldn't resist 


btw: nice back-peddeling Inaba!

Ah got it. I wasn't aware of the previous disparity on BFL equipment. Still...I'm voting for Inaba to win. I want efficient equipment

Yes, probably. Butterfly Labs was wrong on the power efficiency of the first device in their previous generation of products by almost a factor of 5, from 1000MH/s@20W to 832MH/s@80W. Considering that we don't know what the status is of the ASIC chips, it's possible that BFL doesn't have the first run back from the foundry yet, and do not know the exact power consumption at their rated hash rate. It might be a long shot to win this one given how low the bar is set relative to the claims, but 500:1 odds make up for a lot of that.

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?

You already have the honour to be the first one to answer to pirateat40's OP...
Don't overdo it!

LOL you didn't "buy" anything. It's already been said that they won't use any more power than the current products.

Can we expand the bet, I will bet with Inaba

If you would take some time off from hassling BFL about whether they're going to respond to an introductory price of an ASIC that's launching months after theirs is planned to, you could spend enought time to read a thread before commenting on it.

What/who is "mrb"?

What are you babbling about? This is a continuation of the bet that mrb proposed that BFL would meet 350MH/J. It has nothing to do with the claims that BFL has made about their power usage which are actually more than twice as stringent.