Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products (Read 11621 times)

The result of taking nitpicking lawyering seriously is 8000 pages of legislation nobody reads, introduced blank into Congress (and voted as such).

If you think the BitBet model such as it is is worse than that - fine. As far as can be discerned it's only worse to the people who want to con others by relying on ridiculous interpretations that magically make their one in a hundred crapshot worth a lot.

No, the bet was based on the specification at the time the bet was made. At the point they shipped those 'first' products they hadn't changed spec, they were just pushing something out of the door to keep people happy. They were still working to get the rest of their stuff down to spec.

You really are struggling with this aren't you.

Really good juice could be an explanation, sure. I kinda doubt it tho.

Not only did BitBet rip off its users, it also ripped off the creator of the bet as seen here.

I have proved many times that BitBet allowed a BadBet, resolved a BadBet and used cherry-picked sources for the resolution - yet some internet philosophers keep ignoring that and talk about dead cats in boxes or boxes of GPUs. It is becoming clear that BitBet has no interest in fixing their mistakes let alone admitting them - instead they keep calling their customers kids and restards, ignoring the raised issues.

Running a scammy business on internet must be much easier than face to face, but not all internet users are sheeple you can fleece and ignore/try to get away with it. I will now resume contacting the Romanian authorities to get your mailing address, asking them if you're licensed to run online gambling service and whether you're licensed to run an online stocks/options/futures exchange. I will also do my best to warn others about your your scammy, unlicensed business.

So the first products that BFL delivered consumed more power, as stated by BFL, but BitBet resolved the bet to "No
 because of increased power consumption? GG

I didn't say that, but it doesn't surprise me that you would try to claim that I did.

I said "The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power."

Once again, you are confusing reality with your imaginary fantasy world.

By that logic the rate of decay of all parts of the machinery are included in performance.  Meaning that cheap parts that can produce the same output as more expensive parts would have lower performance because they will degrade quicker.  You could also say that a fans ability to not be clogged would be performance, even though that's not addressed.


It is in fact a performance metric, but the bet was not made on that specific metric.  We could expand on this logic to say that the whole bet depends on a single unused diode.


I didn't mean to accuse you of defining it, i just wanted to point out that it's undefined right now.


I think i've pretty much stated my case.  At this point i'm just replying to replies

So you insist on having GH/J as part of the specs / performance, yet you claim that decreased GH/J doesn't change the specs / performance metrics. Good job.

I can't even believe people are trying to argue that this bet should have gone the other way.

Talk about delusional, jeez.

Oh hey, this thread still going? And the people who fucked up are still sore in the butt? And nothing else is coming out of it?

Who could have imagined it!

Here's a five cent clue, kids: Stay in school. Trolling for BFL doesn't pay.

The only misrepresentation going on is by BitBet. They clearly think that performance = performance per watt, they also clearly know that a lot of people think that performance per watt is not performance, yet they do nothing whatsoever to clarify the vague phrase "advertised performance" when they could quite easily specify exactly what that performance is on the bet.

The fact that they refuse to do so, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are deliberately misleading their users in order to rip them off. All because they have a grudge against BFL.

And you still try to push your agenda with misrepresentation, and conflation of your opinion with facts.


People have opinions on all sorts of things. Just because people don't agree with something it does not make that thing any less sure.


The post does not say the spec has changed. It says the first products will consume more power.


Thats very kind, but my reading comprehension is adequate for this very simple exercise.

I agree that would be specification of the experiment, when the experiment is underway, the rate at which the helium is used would constitute a part of that experiments performance though.


The wikipedia link describes performance per watt. Merely affirming that it is a performance metric.



Sorry typo. Rather an unfortunate one, but still a typo.


No I am not defining anything, I am saying performance per watt is just a facet of performance.

Unless you have some evidence that it isn't we are done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specification_(technical_standard)
"A specification (often abbreviated as spec) is an explicit set of requirements to be satisfied by a material, design, product, or service."

A spec is a set of requirements for achieving performance.  It could be the amount of helium in the air required to do an experiment, consuming that helium like miners consume power.


If you'll notice my link to wikipedia earlier in a previous post, it should clear this up for you, assuming you understand hardware.


GH/s stands for GH/s...not GH/w/s.  I'll concede that standard performance measurements in the mining community haven't been uniquely defined.  But that only supports the fact that we need to use the terms that the people who build hardware use, which is what i'm doing and you're not.

Let's break this apart a bit shall we?

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

• can be established to true/false
• no percentage or quantity defined, thus any quantity will result in true
• turned out to be: true

• can be established to true/false
• turned out to be: true

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "advertised" can be interpreted in many ways ie. what mediums are considered to be official advertisement
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than needed, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

• cannot be univocally established to true/false (BadBet)
• "performance" can be interpreted in many ways ie. Performance per Joule (GH/J), Gigahashes per secons (GH/s)
• Sources supporting "Yes" answer
  
  • Official BFL FAQ says that the company will not give out any info relating to power consumption, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • Official BFL product pages only advertised GH/s performance, thus Performance per Joule should be out of the picture
  • BFL Forum post from 28-03-2013 by BFL_JOSH says announces that at least first products will use more power than thought before, customers can opt to wait longer (first devices will still use more power) or to get a refund

• Sources supporting "No" answer
  
  • BFL Forum post from 2012-09-29 (later superceded by 28-03-2013 anncouncement)

• true is supported by more sources, referenced "No" source was negated

The bet should not have been allowed in the first place as per BitBets FAQ/EULA. After it was accepted, when it became clear that bettors couldn't agree what advertised performance was (see the comments about in the bet, people even here can't agree) the bet should have been cancelled.

Now if BitBet doesn't stick to their own policies and still wants to resolve the bet, "Yes" is a clear winner because it is supported by more sources and the only "No" source was negated when 28-03-2013 announcement stated that the devices will consume more power than previously advertised.

Let me know if you still think that the 28-03-2013 announcement doesn't say that the first products will perform worse in terms of GH/J and I will help you out.

For the record, a boatload of neckbeards doesn't pay for one single financier. This because tech people actually are humanly inferior to money people. They're less of a person.

Let's ignore the fact then that performance is not performance per watt, despite what some financial weasels think, and focus on the fact that "MPOE posted a link to advertised performance". The only place that such a link would have any purpose whatsoever, is in the actual bet itself and it isn't there, despite repeated requests to have it added. It makes no sense at all to post the link on this forum where nobody using the BitBet site can see it.

You can defend the elitist, racist, scummy, piece of shit scammers as much as you want, after all, they've paid you to do so by deciding that May bet in your favour. Their actions speak louder than their and your words, and their action are those of a scammer.

Heres the first hit on google


efficiency ⊆ performance
speed ⊆ performance
performance per watt ⊆ performance

performance ⊇ any aspect of performance

You appear to be trying to assert that: "because a different word was used to describe one aspect of performance, it is not performance"

You cannot redefine what words actually mean.

Its got nothing to do with finance, or technology, and everything to do with just knowing what words mean.

You have just re-asserted what branksy said, despite that fact that his whole argument was fallacious, by using more fallacious statements.

"The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance." Ad hominem.

"Ask anyone who works with technology, ask on a forum such as Anandtech's CPU or GPU forum and they will tell you the exact same thing." Appeal to common sense.

"It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance." Divine fallacy

"Of course you're going to defend their moronic, biased decision, you benefited from it." Appeal to motive.

"How about we get some advice from people who live and breathe technology instead of relying on scummy little rats who live and breathe finance?" Argumentum ad populum.

Besides, that is another affirmation of the disjunct. You allege that [everyone on anandtech] says performance per watt is efficiency, therefore it is not performance. The dictionary clearly states that efficieny is in fact a measure of performance.

That leaves these two essentially identical statements:

"Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency."
"Performance per Watt is efficiency, not performance. It's that simple."

Again, with the presenting opinion as fact: Special Pleading, Mind Projection fallacy.

You have said nothing that warrants consideration. You present no evidence, just repeat conjecture.

MPOE posted a link to advertised performance, they are the conditions of the bet, that fact you don't like it is neither here nor there.

This thread would benefit from more colors. Here are some colors for it: