Topic: BitBet incorrectly declares yes to a no bet. Stay Away from BitBet!! - page 3. (Read 5615 times)

Hmm. Did anyone simply ask punin what he was calling a unit? 

I mean - maybe he's biased, but at least it'd give something to point to.

ETA: site:bitcointalk.org "quote from: punin" "unit" Nothing yet... 7 more pages to go. Wish I had something productive to do, instead, heh.

ETA2: Alright - how about this?
(Again, I haven't kept up on this, so I don't know if this makes an indication) Is he referring here to one unit as one m-board? Can the m-board be accessed like that, or does it go through something else?

What is "fit in one unit"?  To use more than 16 boards requires 2+ m-boards.  All 400 GH/s orders shipped with additional m-boards. 

Thanks. Edited my own post to try covering that a bit. If the boards can't fit in one unit, then it's not ambiguity being a problem at all, but explicit clarity which covered this exact kind of situation, right? The quote I posted shows punin indicating he was not (at that time) able to produce a 400GH/s unit, and that 16 boards make up a unit.

This is an interesting point -- I just checked the forum and can confirm that nobody who ordered only 1 UNIT (400Gh) confirmed getting more then 400Gh before sept 1.

Only 1 person ordered 2 UNITS (400Gh + 25Gh), and on the second unit they gave him more H-cards to make up for missed hashrate... BUT I am yet to see a single example of someone who ordered ONLY a single 400Gh unit and get more hardware.

The additional boards were shipping with the original order.  The individual boards were rated @ 25GH/s they seem to do on average 22GH/s (some more and some less).  

Starter kits (25 GH/s total vs 44 GH/s shipped):
Advertised: 1 host + 1 board
Shipped: 1 host + 2 boards

Full Kit (400 GH/s total vs >= 400 GH/s shipped)
Advertised: 1 host + 16 boards
Shipped: 2 hosts + 18-19 boards (enough to ensure total output is >= 400 GH/s)


Still the bet was poorly worded and hopefully people in the future will start making better worded bets.  Bets should be written as contracts so there is no possibility of ambiguity.

What is a "unit"?  It would appear the company delivered >=400 GH/s using 2 hosts (M-board) and 18-19 hashing boards (H-board) instead of 1 host (M-board) & 16 hashing boards (H-board) as designed.  The hardware was on time (for 5+ orders per the bet), at least 400 GH/s was delivered per 400 GH/s order, and the efficiency was <= 1J/GH (looks like ~0.7 J/GH). 

The only thing in dispute is doe delivering hardware using 2 hosts + 18 boards not meet the criteria of a "unit"?  The OP complaint isn't that not enough hashing power was delivered or it wasn't efficient enough.  His complaint is that on the 400 GH/s sales it shipped as 2 hosts + 18-19 boards instead of 1 host + 16 boards.  Is 2 hosts + 18-19 boards "one unit"?  I would say probably yes but bets should be worded better so there is absolutely no ambiguity.

Sorry Luke-Jr.  You're wrong and I will explain why.

It seems your definition of what a UNIT seems to stem from your mis-understanding of the actual hardware and what a single 'board' is. I belive you're mixing up a M-board with an H-board.  

When punin says that their 400Gh unit will NOT perform as advertised he is referring to a completely full and populated M-board.  This M-board only has enough slots for 16 H-cards, which do around 22Gh each for 365Gh total... This is the maxiumum amount of hardware that can be defined and comprised of as a single UNIT.

This is why punin says that they can't fit 400Gh in a single UNIT.  The bet says that a UNIT must do 400Gh.  It does not.  The bet is a no.

Finally, This post isn't about your sympathy, or being prepared to lose or not.
However, I'm glad you posted that link, as it clearly states

" it must be uncertain for them both. If, however, one has absolutely certain evidence of the truth of his contention, and says so to the other party, he is not precluded from betting if the latter remains obstinate."

As soon as I had evidence of the truth, I made it clear on the comments and elsewhere, before betting.  Thanks.

Maybe.
"I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit."

If he didn't ship the additional boards by September 1st (I have no idea) which'd get a unit up to 400GH/s, then it couldn't be considered that 400GH/s units were delivered, right? 365GH/s delivered + more later =/= 400GH/s delivered. Or maybe I'm misreading and the extra boards (which still fit with the ordered # of boards in a single unit?) were shipped with the number of boards ordered for 400 or more GH/s?

More info from IRC...

He claims that punin defined "unit" as not being the full 400 Gh/s in this post.
I disagree; punin admits the single board did not meet expectations, but he never says the ordered unit won't. On the contrary, he says an additional board will be provided to make sure the delivered specs are met.
It seems to me two boards comprise the full unit of this "first batch".
Not the advertised design, but it does meet the advertised specs the bet mentioned.

Furthermore, he also admits that he made this bet after he though the conclusion was certain (ie, reading that post), and that he was not prepared to lose.
Betting when one is certain of the outcome is morally wrong unless the other party agrees knowing you are certain.
This can clearly not be the case for everyone who bet before the forum post in question.
So, I'm not at all sympathetic, as he basically tried to steal from the other betters.

While I still wouldn't recommend trusting mircea_popescu (who runs bitbet), he clearly made the right decision in this case.

The fact that people who ordered 400Gh got >= 400Gh does not change the fact that the 400Gh UNIT does 365Gh, making the bet a NO.


PS. I made this post just for you.

The bet says that a UNIT must do 400Gh.

A unit is defined here: http://www.bitfurystrikesback.com/product/400gh-miner-october-2013/

This UNIT does 365Gh. The bet is a no.

Oh, so I was mistaken. I thought the argument was that the power consumption was lower, but the Ghash was as well. If the GHash is higher than claimed, and the power is lower, I don't see what the problem is, I too would call the bet confirmed.

I guess you could call me new to bitcoin... Who runs bitbet?

Yeah, 270 W is definitely better than specs...

no, from this post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3050985 it seems they use 270W. I believe thats how Bitbet was able to confirm the bet, based on the Ghash/Watt. However the bet wasn't about the Ghash/Watt or $ or BTC/Watt, it was about the performance statement. Had they overperformed based on their claims, for example 415Ghash instead of 400 Ghash, and a proportional power increase, I'd say that is fair, but with the info provided, I'd agree the answer to the bet was obviously No.

No surprise there, considering who runs it.

Do the 365 Gh + extra units still run with only 400W power?

Been a few posts detailing that Bitbet is fudging some bets..

It is run by MP. And I hold him in decent regard.. But I think 3 people deciding if a bet is valid would be better then just 1.

That's a clear "no." The bet description isn't very long, but this is very explicit: "Devices must meet advertised performance (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W) in order to be accepted as valid."

All of the betting-on-real-events sites seem to have a murky track record on this, though... (not that it makes it okay - just not an isolated issue. Maybe the ops just don't take it seriously?)

ETA: Or is there evidence of at least five delivered units meeting the advertised specs? That would arguably change things.

1) The bet in question is this:
http://bitbet.us/bet/520/bitfury-eu-august-orders-will-ship-before-1st/

2) The bet language states:
"Bitfurystrikesback.com (Bitfury EU reseller) will ship their 25 and 400 gigahash mining units before 1st of September 2013. Devices must meet advertised performance (25 GH/s unit 40W, 400 GH/s unit 400W) in order to be accepted as valid. Atleast 5 deliveries confirmed by respected members of the community required."

3) I found this bet interesting, it says that the hardware must 'perform as advertised to be accepted as valid'.  I was pretty sure what the '400Gh unit' was based on the forum posts, but just to make sure I went to bitfurystrikesback.com to see what the advertised hardware was.
http://www.bitfurystrikesback.com/product/400gh-miner-october-2013/

400Gh Kit @ 400W
INCLUDES:
- 1 Master board
- 16 hashing boards with 16 Bitfury 55nm ASIC chips for total of 256 chips
- Raspberry Pi Model B with SD card and software preinstalled"

4) I decided that the hardware, as advertised, would not reach 400Gh hashrate. So, I placed a NO bet.

5) The hardware, as advertised, did not meet performance: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3050985
The '400Gh Unit' meets the power usage, but only hashes at 365Gh.

6) A short while later, I was shocked to see that the bet was passed as a YES anyway, with a note that says: "Even if not a very clear cut case, all technicalities aside the bet was substantially delivered upon." 
So, basically, BitBet thinks that the 400Gh Miner in question only hashing at 365Gh is just a 'technicality', and passed the bet anyway.

7) Fraud? Scam? You decide.  Either way I urge you all to stay away from this site.


A side note:  BitFury did a great job and shipped on time. In fact, they are such a great company, that they offered to provide more hardware to customers since they missed hash rate targets.  However, one should not confuse the additional provided hardware with the bet language above which states the '400Gh UNIT' must perform as advertised.  It didn't.