Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 7. (Read 11554 times)

So you admit that you based your decision on rumours instead of fact?

Too bad Jalapeños were cancelled. The ASIC that shipped was not the product you have based your decision on. The product that shipped is called a "BitForce 5 GH/s SC".

Please provide evidence of advertised power consumption for this device which was actually shipped, instead of the initial cancelled device from 2012.

Also, are you not going to address the allegation that you bet 20 BTC on "no"?

So, what you're saying is that because you're some idiotic BFL troll with a grudge, people who bet that BFL would deliver deserve to ripped off?

The bet was completely ambiguous and was resolved based on the specs of a cancelled product. The product that is shipping is not the same product that BitBet is basing it's decision on. Also, BitBet knew they were going to resolve this based on the power consumption of a product that no longer exists and never bother to inform their users, deliberately misleading them.

Neither bet was ambiguous at the time it was allowed. The only thing that changed is that BFL found yet another way to scam. Betsofbitco.in empowered this scam (which comes as little surprise, they were in BFL's pocket anyway, as detailed other places on this forum). BitBet did not.

If tomorrow somebody makes a bet saying "Ford will deliver most 2014 Ford Fiesta preorders during 2014. Product must meet advertised performance to qualify as delivered." it will be accepted, as it's not ambiguous. In sane everyday reality Ford will do exactly that, or else issue a statement explaining they've canceled the series/failed delivery/production/whatever. If Ford were to come up with an announcement saying the 2014 Ford Fiesta is now a Husqvarna lawnmower from 2007, refurbished, then we'd be in BFL scamland.

The reason Ford doesn't do this sort of crap is simply that Ford is a company, not a scam. The reason BFL does do this sort of crap is simply that BFL is a scam, not a company. It is impractical to go around specifying everything a scammer may in time change. For instance, no delivery bet contains a rider saying that "should the product delivered have a long rubber hose affixed transforming it into a YoYo then delivery is invalid". This does not make the bet ambiguous, and even should BFL add rubberbands to their products and try to foist them from the customers' hands later the bet still wouldn't be "ambiguous". BFL would be scammy. That is all.

The forum's post prior to the bet:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

edit:

Here is the product page on 3/29:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130411110627/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html

Can you please identify the product in your post? Since I cannot.

Product page says:

Product name: 5 GH/s Bitcoin Miner - BitForce 5 GH/s SC
Processing Power: 5 GH/s (+/- 10% running variance)

No where it says that it's BitForce Jalapeno / BitForce Single SC / BitForce MiniRig SC

rikur, the advertisement is on the forum post.

If it's using more than (.10*4.5) + 4.5 then it is not within 10% of the advertised performance.

Correct! (see: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/16-announcement-bfl-asic-release-specifications.html)


Correct again! Thats why ramblings and mumblings of Josh are discarded as irrelevant.
(I mean, apparently they are of null importance as I can see their charity bet aint getting no traction)


See, we do agree on the end!

That's why the resolution SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE ADVERTISED SPECS as per the description: product page and FAQ say that power usage will not be disclosed yet. If a single employee goes guessing about it, that's a different story.

So the question is if they advertised the power consumption on 30-03-2013 (the day when bet was started):


Product page from 3/29: http://web.archive.org/web/20130411110627/https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage/5-gh-s-bitcoin-miner.html


Rikur has a point here, there is nothing about the power on the product page.

Also Josh's posts here does imply that BFL will have issues with power on 3/28:

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-2.html#post20942

edit:

Personally I think that the two usb cable doesn't imply any power usage, the description is confusing: Provide two cables, but plug only one into the computer?

Does the bet go "+-10% of the rumored performance"? Thought so.

Erm, the bet was made in 2013 and even before the bet BFL rumored in their forums about higher power usage (see previous posts). Rumored, like they rumored about power usage in the posts you're so keen on quoting.

Too bad, they announced final performance in 2012.

The world is full of crooks and they make me mad. Here's a quote from the FAQ of http://butterflylabs.com/faq/:


Product page has no power consumption specification and FAQ says that BFL is not releasing any power specs for the units. I don't care what people have guessed on forums, the advertising clearly never had power consumption as part of the specs.

See kakobrekla's initial response. kakobrekla claims that "the FINAL advertised performance" was "Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w" and posted two screenshots as the source. That's clearly false.


Actually, I didn't bet on this.

Right now you are choosing to ignore that power consumption is a factor of performance for an electrical device.

Linky ?

So ? That makes you a fool for betting in favour of the bet then.



Here I am with you 100%, wagering sites should not allow ambiguous bets, players should also not be placing wagers on ambiguous bets either. Betsofbitco.in is also in a similair position for allowing an ambiguous bet to be placed then nullifying it later due to being ambigious.

What I would have expected is all the quoted performance factors affecting the wagers outcome should have been itemized in the description.

Of course he's "butthurt", he just got ripped off by a scammer.

Yeah, just ignore the fact that power specs were never mentioned in the bet.
Just ignore the fact that this bet was resolved on obsolete information posted to a forum in 2012.
Just ignore the fact that updated information had been posted to the exact same forum before the bet was created stating that the initial power consumption specs couldn't be met.
Just ignore the fact that BitBet is clearly ignoring its own BadBet policy by allowing ambiguous bets.

Hey Frizz

Yet another BFL related event turned to shit..... Its like Inaba is the Midas of shit.

You are butthurt, OK, but please stop the public whining!

Neither has BFL delivered the promised performance (1GH/s per Watt), nor have they delivered "many pre-orders already".

From the thousands and thousands of pre-orders, how many does BFL claim to have shipped? Maybe around 30.
How many of those did not go to devs, magazines and other members of the family&friends program? Maybe around 10.
How many of those 10 have actually been delivered to pre-order customers? Maybe 5.

Anyway. I would neither call 5, nor 10 nor 30 "many pre-orders" given the total number of orders in the thousands.

No scam, they failed to meet the power specs they quoted (big surprise, BFL lied again).