Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 6. (Read 11621 times)

I have nothing to do with bitbet.us or MPOE. I'm just "some guy on the internet". I am 17BGf71aGDBHjoLNugGt94GgsJv8mQf6QZ

I have a single preorder, I was worried it was a scam, my bet was a hedge against that. Before I made the bet I hopped onto IRC to ask about what was meant by "advertised performance" and was told it was what was in place at the time of the bet the logic being [or they could just change the spec and ship anything] i cant remember the exact words.

What you are doing, rikur, is arguing semantics. You remind me of spineless defense lawyers trying to get people to acquit rapists because the girl "didn't explicitly say no to the sex act, and it doesn't say anything about kicking and screaming meaning no in the lawbook". That lawyer is trying to go by the letter of the law instead of following the spirit of the law. The one thing this world is not short of is people who ignore the spirit of the law, because it serves their own ends. You are making the world a worse place by being like that. Just stop it.

This bet was made in good faith. BFL were selling a product that set itself above others based on the fact you got a buttload of hash rate in a tiny energy efficient box.

Hat's off to BFL for delivering a buttload of hash. However, the box is bigger and it uses a bunch more power. As a customer I am disappointed that they didn't hit their power claims. *Where* they made those claims is irrelevant, they did make those claims, and I ordered based on those claims.

The thing is I could now go them and be all arsey about that, and demand a refund yadayada

I'm not going to do that for two reasons:

1. it still looks like a good product (as opposed to the great one I ordered)
2. (most importantly) they had the common decency to keep everyone updated, tell us all about what was going on, be honest about the power consumption issues they were facing and that they weren't going to hit spec

There is nothing I can say to sway you from your incessant campaign against bitbet, MPOE, anyone else who disagrees with you and now me. If nothing else though I feel it only fair that the baseless accusation that he is betting on his own site is put to rest.

Of course in your head I'm only saying this because I won. The best thing about that is, at least that is in your head.

Remember folks gamble responsibly - don't bet what you can't afford to lose

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.

The I'd recommend to put the exact numbers (and a link to the announcement that is referenced for the "advertised performance") in the bet description or at least having a way to clarify arising issues like this directly in the bet's description (e.g. "Editor's note: To clarify, performance means X GH/s per Y Watts, the advertised products when opening this bet were Product 1: ... Product 2: ... and Product 3: ...").

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.

Betting on something that does NOT clarify in clear numbers what "advertised rates" etc. mean is just looking for trouble...

Just clarify before betting what this "advertised performance" (e.g. on bitbet.us/bet/307/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-july-1st/) is in clear numbers, if they don't want to do that, well don't bet or prepare to fund the "option emporium" of our unfriendly neighbourhood romanian.
Also please be aware that "+/- 10%" also means that if suddenly performance is much BETTER than expected, you can still loose!

Oh good, the rape card.

Can't wait for the "bitbet deciding against me is as bad as the holocaust" 'argument'.

She deserved to be raped officer, she was wearing a short skirt!

Look at all these people swimming with sharks and then complaining when they're bitten.

"You didn't tell me these sharks had teeth. I demand an immediate detoothing."

Of course that's me. If you've only just figured that out, you must have the mental capabilities of a 5 year old. And if you think I'm going to become an Internet celebrity because you posted an email to your shitty blog, then you must be seriously delusional as well.


Then why did you write, "So you lost and you would like your bet refunded. Great."?

Now instead of posting my name as if that means something and patting yourself on the head, why don't you address the points being made which show that you're nothing but a scummy piece of shit who conspired to rip off your users?

I'm glad you posted that email, it just goes to show how unprofessional you and your scammy outfits are.

Your credibility is pretty much epsilon after the entire racism fiasco, not like anybody gives a shit what nonsense you sprout. Knock yourself out.

@OP: You can allege anything you wish. So can anyone else. For instance I could claim you're pirate. What of it?


It's on the blog, dummy.


So you're the Mark Sanders muppet? Congrats, you're an interwebs celebrity nao.

PS. The claim isn't that you lost, the claim is that you're an idiot.

Sound like they've already decided the outcome of the July bet as well, since they're claiming I lost.

You're ignoring the fact that at the time the bet was made, the specification had already changed. Resolving this bet on the specs from 2012 is no different than claiming bitcoins are only worth $1 because that's how much they were at some point in 2012.

Are bitcoins worth $1? No! Was the "advertised" power consumtion 1W when the bet was made? No!

Also, I disagree with GH/W being the standard way to measure mining performance. That's a measure of mining efficiency, not performance. Look at GPUs for example, the best performers are not the most efficient, they're simply the fastest.

http://i.imgur.com/U50p1sW.jpg ( http://www.reddit.com/r/BetterBitcoinBureau/comments/1dj0tq/bitbetus/ )

BitBet administrator responds to another users email with:

you voted on a somewhat ambiguous bet; and that's what you get

the power consumption is part of the performance

you could buy a 4.5ghash rig with a board/psu and a bunch of 7990's but it would consume a lot of power

G/hash per watt is just about the STANDARD way to measure performance of a bitcoin miner

in the best case for OP, all bets should be refunded to owners (too late now right)

This news to me, now I have another site to blacklist.

• BitBet accepted a "Bad Bet" that's against their policy at http://bitbet.us/faq/
• BitBet resolved the "Bad Bet" to "No" based solely on the ambiguous part of the bet, breaking their own policies twice
• BitBet based their decision on the specs of a cancelled product posted to a forum in 2012
• BitBet ignored all other posts made before the bet was created stating that those products had been cancelled and replaced, and that power consumption had changed
• BitBet has since admitted that forum speculation can be discarded
• BitBet is still running a duplicate of this May 1st "Bad Bet" dated for July 1st, which is against their policy
• BitBet will probably try to resolve the July 1st based "Bad Bet" on the same unfounded grounds, breaking their own policy once again

It has been pointed out that the biggest(20 BTC) "No" vote comes from MPEx, run by the same people running BitBet. This could be a coincidence, but could also mean that they should have disqualified themselves from betting/resolving this bet in the first place.

Here's my bet. I might have had another smaller "Yes" bet and can track it down later, but the biggest Yes bet was made by me:
03-04-13 08:50   Yes   84`489   2.00000000   1EjDg    0.00000000   1DeYV

The 5GH/s device is unfortunately not available from The Internet Archive before date April 4th:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130404210143/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html

No mention of power usage, advertised specs only include GH/s with +/- 10% variance (the bet added another +/- 10% on top of this, since the advertised specs already had the variance on it). The delivered products have been reported to have 5.6 to 5.8 GH/s performance, which is within +/- %20 of 5GH/s.

However, the official FAQ has not been changed since Jan 2013 and there they clearly state that they will not release power consumption at this time:


All in all, the +-10% extra condition on the bet is very ambiguous and against the "Bad Bet" policy of the BitBet:

"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."

Without attaching a proof of the advertised performance, the bet cannot be univocally established as true or false. Thus the bet should have been a) cancelled or b) ambiguous extra conditions ignored.

So you just admitted that forum posts are just ramblings (BFL_Office and BFL_Josh are the same person from all we know) and they can be discarded, yet you resolved the bet on one and ignored the much more trustworthy sources ie. product pages and product FAQ which clearly state that power consumption will not be released yet.

When will you admit your bad judgement and pay out the bet for the Yes voters? I'm sure bitbet(read: you) has the BTC to do it since your policies facilitate stealing of bettor money in case of over-betting or last minute betting (the largest portion of last dividends came from these fraudulent rules, no?).

I can read fine. Can you? If so, then explain why you're decision was based on information about the Jalapeno - a product which was cancelled and before the bet was even made, rather than information about the product which existed at the time the bet was created - the BitForce 5 GH/s SC. What was the "advertised performance" of the BitForce 5GH/s SC?

Also, while you're explaining things, explain why are you allowing ambiguous bets, which according to your policy in the FAQ are bad bets and never should have been allowed in the first place.

Oh yeah, you may also want to respond to the allegation that you bet 20 BTC on "no".

No, but I admit you can't read.