Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 3. (Read 11554 times)

28 March 2013 - Mini-Update

I had wanted to post a video tonight, but wasn't able to make that happen, so let me apologize for that in advance. As some of you may know from the chatbox, we have been working diligently to get these ASICs out the door. We've been tracking down a power issue these last few days and have it isolated to a few key systems. In the interest of time, we are planning on potentially scaling back units hashing speed as required to accommodate the extra power and shipping multiple units to those that want their units right now. If would would prefer to wait for a unit after we've made some changes to the systems that need a bit of tweaking, we will be happy to put your shipment on hold. However, if you'd rather have the units right now at an increased power usage, we will ship you as many units as required to get you to the hashrate your purchased, if we end up having to scale back any given class of unit to fit within the power envelope of the current board design.

We have the current design hashing, and as I said, I had hoped to have a video of a unit hashing here in KC, but I wasn't able to bring that all together tonight, but hopefully I can get it posted up tomorrow or by this weekend. I will update as soon as I have more news to share, with a video.

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. If you'd rather have your units shipped regardless of increased power usage, we will still guarantee your hashrate by shipping you however many units are required to achieve your purchased hashrate. There is no need to contact us right now if you are not concerned about the power usage and just want your units shipped ASAP.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.

Again, we apologize for the delay, but we are almost there.

Actually, plenty of people have asked, plenty of people have been told exactly what it means.

(This is how everyone* knows that the +-10% A. is only there to match the - at the time - official BFL release and B. is construed in favor of BFL, which is to say no more wattage, no less hashing. You couldn't lose the bet if they made a chip that's less energy intensive, faster or both).

*everyone who bothered to ask, of course.

This isn't how it works, scam makes statements that contradict previous statements and everyone downstream suddenly scrambles to modify, clarify and so forth. Onus is on BFL.

That aside, next time someone makes a bet with BFL crap yes they'll have to specify all this.

Which is what? Post the specifications or a link to them so we can see what the decision will be based on.

1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149

2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299

3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

Well then, idiot:


Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced.

Well then, idiot:


Exactly what it was at the time the bet was introduced.


It is.

Also, you're going on my ignore, which means now you can't even get a second chance at asking a question. Practically speaking you're both deaf and mute now. Cool going, huh.

1) For the July 1st BFL bet, what exactly is the advertised performance?

2) Why isn't this essential information listed on the actual bet?

As to the July bet: if you ask specific questions, you get specific answers. If you declare something to be X you mostly get ignored, as you're not on my list of people who get to make binding declarative statements.

As i'm sure others here do, i work professionally with a lot of electrical engineers.  I specifically asked a few before betting if power requirements would be considered performance or just specifications.

Add me to the list of those who think this thread is simply full of lulz.

I read the bet - didn't seem ambiguous at the time. OR profitable.

classic parts? the email re: fuckin your wife, and Inaba sticking up for ...well...the generation 2 bfl scam.

Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose. Bet on an unsure outcome, and lose your money. Whine about it, and look like a fool.

It seems like "planes hurting each other" does not constitute a "BadBet", just like the poorly worded (and still not conclusively clarified!) July 1st BFL bet...

bitbet.us/bet/148/one-plane-from-p-r-china-will-be-hurt-by/

What bets are BadBets?

First and foremost, statements that can not univocally be established as either true or false at a certain point in the future are BadBets and as such unacceptable on BitBet. For instance, "God Exists" is unacceptable, because it can never be established as either true or false. "God will change Coke to Pepsi on August 19th, 2013" is also unacceptable, also because it can never be established as true or false (even if the change of Coke to Pepsi could allegedly be established).

Then, any bet to do with breaking the law (specifically, murder, but also arson, theft, general destruction and mayhem) is a BadBet and not allowed on BitBet. So, bets such as "President Obama will be shot on December the 19th between 18:30:00 and 19:00:00 UTC", "The Empire State building will burn to the ground sometime in June 2013", "A crowd of at least five hundred protestors will not throw tomatoes at Nicole Kidman during the Cannes" and so forth are all unacceptable.

Also, bets which are not really bets but moreover advertising, advocacy, rambling nonsense and such are unacceptable on BitBet.

Not trying to argue, don't think my point is even valid, just opinion lol.

If that link was in the email then i wouldn't have brought it up, not a big deal, but now i feel guilty for keeping this thread alive with a pointless argument :/

Not trying to argue, don't think my point is even valid, just opinion lol.

If that link was in the email then i wouldn't have brought it up, not a big deal, but now i feel guilty for keeping this thread alive with a pointless argument :/

All i was really saying for sure is that if they were going to cancel or if it was undecided then most support would simply give me the numbers so that when the bet is concluded i could file my claim, assuming 2 of the 3 possible decisions.  At that point i didn't see how No could possibly win, so i thought cancellation was most likely, before the email.

*edit*
or point me to the formula to calculate my own

how to calc your payout for youself, so we don't have to that for each and everyone that wishes to know.