Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 2. (Read 11621 times)

Performance per watt is not performance, it's efficiency. I pointed that out several pages ago. The only people who don't seem to understand this are scummy little weasels who work in finance. 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. Performance is about speed, Performance per Watt is about efficiency.

It should be blatantly obvious to everyone who isn't brain dead that performance per watt is not the same as performance, otherwise we would simply call it performance and not performance per watt.

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

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?

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

Your point(s) all seemed to be that you and your friends had some opinion on what should or should not constitute "performance", and that your opinion was that power consumption didn't count.

Well here is my opinion:

Performance describes the manner in which something functions. Those attributes that are particular to its operation, how it 'performs'.

Specifications describe what something is. Its physical attributes, its form.

Now you said...


Lets break that down:

You contrast performance and specification as being two distinct things. This statement is important because it sets the mood. You will use this idea later to affirm the disjunct.

You ask your friends to categorise "power requirements" as performance or specification. However "requirements" are something that might form part of an objects design, so naturally it would seem fit that requirements are considered part of a device's specification. Requirements exist independently of an object ever operating.

When phrasing their response, you play a clever trick and switch the term "power requirements" for "power consumption", you say your friends tell you "power consumption" is not an aspect of performance.

Power consumption is something that happens when a device is functioning. Consumption happens (more than likely in line with the specified power requirements) when the device 'performing'. It is an aspect of 'performance', which will likely be in line with the specified "power requirements".

You try to redefine this aspect of performance as being something else. However in creating this other "not-performance" category, you actually use the word performance to describe it!

You then make the statement "It's the same as saying that case size relates to performance".

This is where you attempt to close the deal.

You attempt to assert that "power consumption" is not performance, and use your original premise of categorising things as "performance or specification" to assert that it must then be part of the device's specification.

"performance per watt" IS performance. Saying "GH/s isn't performance, it's performance per watt" is nonsensical.

It is like saying "Mallards aren't birds, they are ducks" or "Ferrari's aren't vehicles, they are cars".

My sources are irrelevant.  What is relevant is that nobody has addressed my points with any valid counter arguments, or god forbid a link and not just a wall of text with no factual statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_per_watt

Being anon online doesn't mean anything.  For all i know every person arguing in this thread is the same guy.

Someone press this idiot on why they refuse to add the essential information about what constitutes "advertised performance" to the actual bet if they're not a bunch of scamming cunts.

Here's a rebuttal: Anon asswipe (that's you) makes random appeal to authority (that'd be your anon expert friends). He then fails to name the authority, and the whole thing falls apart at the slightest examination. He then proceeds to claim "the OP's grasp on reality must be a struggle", because that's the problem with people showing internet idiots that they're internet idiots: teh grasp on reality, man.

Next step, complain that I ad-hominem. Because after failing at making an argument, and failing at making a broken argument and failing at the entire "I win by losing" thing that's the one avenue left.

Fucking retards seriously, how can you go on living? It's beyond the credible.

If you think i'm calling out people i work with on a bitcoin forum then your grasp on reality must be a struggle.  A more productive response would be some sort of rebuttal to my argument.

Wait, what?

For further lulz about "what most people reading this thread have figured out", who exactly have you asked? Name and surname please.

There seems to be a misconception among some people that specifications are the same as performance...they are not.  If you want to get technical about it, even the circuit boards are specifications, where performance is the end result of the specifications.  The people i asked were well aware of all information, they just know that i asked about "Advertised Performance".  It's kind of like the people talking about stacking GPUs in a box.  A GPU is not an ASIC, and arguments like that from bitbet representatives only confirm what most people reading this thread have figured out.

Let me just sum up what you posted:


You keep saying the spec changed before 30th March. I keep saying prove it.

As is the date of 09-30-2012. Also, that vital information has still not been made available at the only place that matters - the actual bet itself. MPOE-PR is also contradicting themselves by claiming:


Face it, they're a bunch of scammers who are full of shit.


Yet deciding BFL bets on the contents of a webpage from 09-30-2012 is perfectly fine.

Wow, that is pretty damn clear. 

4.5 GH / 4.5 W
60 GH / 60 W
1.5 TH / 1.5 kW.

Please link to the advertisement as well as state these numbers here + on the bet. There are several advertisements out there that are at least partly conflicting which leads to confusion as you can clearly see. Time to clear this up.

To a significant fraction thereof. This means that one person claiming to have received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet (such as the Luke-jr fraud has done with the betsofbitco.in scam "bet"). This also means that one person claiming to have not received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet the other way.

Ideally this could be further clarified. Practically, it cannot be further clarified. This is the unfortunate limitation of Bitcoin per se (more of the same here). We will have (absolutely all of us, whether we want to or not, whether we think it's fair or not, whether anything else) to learn to live with it.


All of them. This should not logically be a problem, seeing how the devices are presumed to be mass produced rather than carved by hand somewhere. I agree that for the time it took so far they might as well been hand carved, but this unfortunately is simply not a possibility that was considered or even reasonable at the time the bet was made. Consequently, it's baked in.


This was already explained multiple other places, but:

A. It is there because this is the retarded manner in which BFL (the producer itself!) phrased their own offering. In the choice between A.1. "phrase the bet differently from the producer, and be accused of loading the bet" and A.2. "phrase the bet exactly the same as the producer, and then face the hordes holding you to higher standards than the producer seeing how everyone knows BFL is a scam and everyone knows MP upholds his obligations to the word and letter" A.2. prevailed. This is because MP personally and his venture in this case are shining beacons of ideal perfection, as compared to everything else in Bitcoin, such as for instance (in this case) BFL.

B. It is interpreted in favor of BFL, which is to say that hash of no less than 90% and power consumption of no more than 110% of the spec. It won't decide against delivery if the hashing delivered is MORE than promised, or if the power usage is LESS than promised. It will decide against delivery if either hashing delivered is more than 10% under advertised values, or if power consumption is more than 10% over advertised values. The "or"s in the foregoing are plain (as opposed to exclusive), and I am getting slightly worried at noticing I feel compelled to specify that.


Kindly see post #10 in this thread.


It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

To remind everyone: This bet followed the statements that BFL itself made, back when it was lying to all of you. You don't like the lies you've swallowed, talk to the cook.

And of course all this could have been avoided if BitBet used the actual product pages as their source of information. Or the FAQ that said that the company will not advertise power consumption at this point.

But even if you played by their "rules" and looked at forum posts, the "Yes" bet should still have won as I've pointed out many times before.

Still waiting for an update from BitBEt.

To make it clear there is a distinction between:

a. we might have to do "this and that", and
b. we are doing "that and this"

in column a, we have not been told that anything has changed, we have been given a mysterious future where things may change. "things may change" is intrinsically the same as "things may not change" it is a state of flux, that cannot be conclusively argued one way or another until the cat is out of the box, and we can see whether it is alive or dead.

however, as the cat was alive when it went into the box then I can just say it is alive and I am not required to prove it, the lid shuts a live cat went in. The cat was alive when it went in, and until it is actually dead, then it is not *in fact* dead.

To prove it is dead, requires the box to be opened. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to claim it is dead. until the box is open the pro-dead lobby can argue all they want about the condition of the cat, but it can never be said that the cat is dead.

That is what is happening here, the spec is/was the spec until such time as it wasn't. All that conjecture about whether it was going to change, well that doesn't actually change it.

It was around April 4th when BFL moved over into column B. They had tried to get the power down (to the original spec) and had improved lots but realised they could not. Then they said "this is the new power spec" and "these are your options".

That was when they opened the box. That was the day the cat died.

I don't have to prove anything, you are the one making the claim, the burden of proof lies with you.

The 'if' creates doubt. Therefore nothing that follows it can be taken as proof for one side or the other.

You need to find proof the spec changed, not your opinion on whether the spec will theoretically change "if" XYZ...

I'll humour you.

I'm going to assume you want me to focus on the bold bits:

If you absolutely do not want a unit that is consuming more power than expected, you can let us know you'd like to wait for a revised unit or you are welcome to request a refund.

It means these units they made they are going to ship to people who are cool with that. The fact he gave you the option to wait for a revised unit would suggest that they are still working to hit the original spec.

If he had phrased it like "if you do not want one of these units then you better request a refund, because this is as good as it gets" then I would agree that would imply the spec had changed.


Even with the increased power demand on these first units, they will still out perform any competing products by a very wide margin in terms of power and megahash/J.

It does indeed say these units consume more than before, but it does not say that this is now the new standard. In fact the phraseology used specifically sets apart these 'first units' as being distinct from 'some other units'. The implication being those other units will be to spec, because of course, they have not at this point stated that they are giving up on hitting that spec.

So when I linked you to that post, I said this was the 'best I can find'. What I mean by that is that you can try and take that post and infer that the spec has changed/is changing/will change. It doesn't actually say it though. So if there is no evidence that something happened, then the default position is that a thing did not happen - the burden of proof lies with you. Prove they changed the spec prior to 30th March.

The 1st April post doesn't even say they are changing spec. What it does is it proves, that at the point that he said that, he considered that those specs could still be 'missed'. Its an implicit acknowledgement that until that point at least, the specs were still in play.

Consequence follows action, it is the natural order of things.

Action: we misssed spec.
Consequence: we change spec.

Now you could get into some deep buddhist shit about the nature of causality, and try and argue that the changing of the spec and the missing of the spec have no causal link (see: Naagaarjuna for more on that!) and I'll certainly not be able to deny it. Still it ain't gonna get you your witch burnt is it?

Attention is needed, the "critical if" sentence says that they might have to send you many units in order to achieve advertised performance(GH/s) because the efficiency (GH/J) has changed and they might not fit the power envelope of the board.

In other words: Because of increased power usage, they might have to scale back (underclock/less chips per board) and send you two units instead of one.

EDIT:

RAH RAH RAH. Now at least one of your points is not moot.