Topic: bitbet.us scammers ignore delivered BFL products - page 8. (Read 11554 times)

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:58:37 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshot were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertise performance must be from an advertisement from that date on, not from before that date. I want to see an advert posted from around 30-03-2013. If such an advert can't be produced, then there is no evidence to prove that such an advert exists.

If there is no evidence to prove that power-consumption claims were altered or explicitly removed between 2012 and end of March 2013, then the assumption must be that claims made in 2012 were still valid at the end of March 2013. The presumption is that the bet was made on the most recent information available at the time - and thus far, the most recent information that has been presented here shows that power consumption claims were indeed made.

Thus anyone claiming that there were no or altered power consumption claims at the end of March 2013 must prove that some time after those images were taken, but before the end of March 2013, the power consumption claims were either retracted or altered by BFL.

Seems quite straightforward to me - and I don't have any financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this bet.

There is proof though. https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1512-power-consumption-early-shipping-bfl-units-per-hash.html

As you can see, that was posted 03-29-2013.

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Quote from: rikur on April 30, 2013, 10:13:02 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

Google 'bfl specification release'. You can press 'im feelin lucky'.

That takes me to a forum post dated 09-29-2012. The specs have changed completely since then. That's no different than me claiming bitcoins are worth $1 because some forum post from 2012 says they were. It's utter nonsense.

Also, why didn't you alter the bet to say that power consumption was included if you knew you were going to resolve it that way? You've misled your users and you're coming up with nonsensical reasons to justify your position.

Such an ambiguous bet never should have been allowed in the first place. I also see that there's another bet going for July 1st and that's also the same ambiguous nonsense.

These bets are nothing but a scam.

Rodyland

hero member

Activity: 499

Merit: 500

bitbet.us probably chose No since they had the biggest No vote on the bet. Conflict of interest?

Quote

Website : BitBet.us

Owner : Matic "kakobrekla" Kočevar and Mircea "mircea_popescu" Popescu

31. So did you do it all by yourself ?

Not really. While Mircea Popescu has been managing the project and putting up the capital since the very beginning..

20BTC No bet just happens to to come from MPEX that was founded by the very same person that runs bitbet.us and is here defending the No votes. Hmm you say? Here's the transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/01d55664107a02ebb68fe0f80f85d61ce41c1be0191e11294d1031d7cd8ebdf2

You can see it yourself by cliking on the 20BTC no bet on the bitbet.us link in the original post.

Just because the bet didn't go the way you think it should have, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.

Doesn't mean there isn't either. Cheesy

But if you're going to try to argue that your position holds merit, you could at least provide some supporting evidence. Nothing you've posted here in support of your assertion even comes close to the evidence posted that disproves your position.

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

bitbet.us probably chose No since they had the biggest No vote on the bet. Conflict of interest?

Quote

Website : BitBet.us

Owner : Matic "kakobrekla" Kočevar and Mircea "mircea_popescu" Popescu

31. So did you do it all by yourself ?

Not really. While Mircea Popescu has been managing the project and putting up the capital since the very beginning..

20BTC No bet just happens to to come from MPEX that was founded by the very same person that runs bitbet.us and is here defending the No votes. Hmm you say? Here's the transaction:

https://blockchain.info/tx/01d55664107a02ebb68fe0f80f85d61ce41c1be0191e11294d1031d7cd8ebdf2

You can see it yourself by cliking on the 20BTC no bet on the bitbet.us link in the original post.

Rodyland

hero member

Activity: 499

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mabsark on April 30, 2013, 10:02:15 PM

Quote from: Rodyland on April 30, 2013, 09:55:14 PM

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Quote from: Rodyland on April 30, 2013, 09:55:14 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshot were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertise performance must be from an advertisement from that date on, not from before that date. I want to see an advert posted from around 30-03-2013. If such an advert can't be produced, then there is no evidence to prove that such an advert exists.

If there is no evidence to prove that power-consumption claims were altered or explicitly removed between 2012 and end of March 2013, then the assumption must be that claims made in 2012 were still valid at the end of March 2013. The presumption is that the bet was made on the most recent information available at the time - and thus far, the most recent information that has been presented here shows that power consumption claims were indeed made.

Thus anyone claiming that there were no or altered power consumption claims at the end of March 2013 must prove that some time after those images were taken, but before the end of March 2013, the power consumption claims were either retracted or altered by BFL.

Seems quite straightforward to me - and I don't have any financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this bet.

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

I'm not claiming that it has changed. I'm claiming that those two screenshots were from 2012 and the bet was made at the end of March 2013. The advertised performance must be from an advertisement from that around that date. I want to see an advert posted from around 30-03-2013. If such an advert can't be produced, then there is no evidence to prove that such an advert exists.

kakobrekla

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

Google 'bfl specification release'. You can press 'im feelin lucky'.

Rodyland

hero member

Activity: 499

Merit: 500

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:51:46 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

I would think that the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that it had changed, rather than on the one claiming it hadn't.

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:39:37 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Source?

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

Welcome.

Contacted a lawyer, will wait for his opinion about the brief to see whether it's worth it or not.

kakobrekla

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:34:33 PM

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

It was unchanged.

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Sauce:
http://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
http://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

The bet was created on 30-03-2013. The date in the first image is 09-30-2012 and the date in the second image is 10-19-2012. Both of those screenshots are completely irrelevant.

Do you have any screenshots from the 30-03-2013 advertising power consumption?

Rodyland

hero member

Activity: 499

Merit: 500

I knew someone else would have "hard" evidence that the power performance figures were advertised.

I agree, advertised does not only mean "on their product page on their web site". And I don't see how an official post by BFL on their own forums could be called "speculation".

I don't know what consumer law jurisdiction you all live in, but in mine, any representations made verbally by company representatives are binding. That these representations were captured on these forums makes them indisputable.

kakobrekla

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

Quote from: kakobrekla on April 30, 2013, 09:34:33 PM

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

Welcome.

rikur

full member

Activity: 216

Merit: 100

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs.

We already had a long discussion over this in #bitcoin-assets so dunno why the need to repeat. Yes the page went from 1 usb cable, to two usb cables to usb cable and a brick. But all that is irrelevant. Peformance is at least gh/s/w or else a box of gpus will do.

Grow up and accept that you lost.

Exactly.

And the FINAL advertised performance:

Quote

Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w.

Sauce:
http://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
http://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

Now go hunt BFL to pay up thier bet or get scammer tagged.

Nope, that is not the advertised performance. Forum speculation is forum speculation, product page advertisement is what the company is standing behind and will deliver.

I'm considering suing bitbet.us over this, so if you're thinking the same please let me know.

kakobrekla

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Psi laju, karavani prolaze.

I ordered from them twice (before the bet and after the bet) and wattage was never mentioned anywhere. And no, the page doesn't say it will run off the usb cables. This is like some of the No voters trying to say that delivering 1 USB cable instead of 2 is less than 10% of the advertised performance specs.

We already had a long discussion over this in #bitcoin-assets so dunno why the need to repeat. What you have read and where have you ordered has nothing to do with what they advertised. Yes the page went from 1 usb cable, to two usb cables to usb cable and a brick. But all that is irrelevant. Peformance is at least gh/s/w or else a box of gpus will do.

Grow up and accept that you lost.

Exactly.

And the FINAL advertised performance:

Quote

Jalapeno - 4.5gh/s 4.5w, Single SC - 60 GH/s 60w, MiniRig SC - 1,500 GH/s 1,500w.

Sauce:
http://i.imgur.com/pXyy3.png
and
http://i.imgur.com/5MBoA.png

Now go hunt BFL to pay up thier bet or get scammer tagged.

oh, and to all those who say it was not 'advertised', the definition;
1. a paid announcement, as of goods for sale, in newspapers or magazines, on radio or television, etc.
2. a public notice, especially in print
3. the action of making generally known; a calling to the attention of the public

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

I would like to hear BitBet's reasoning for this decision.

Here's the earliest advertisement I could find which clearly makes no mention of power consumption, http://web.archive.org/web/20130117120834/http://www.butterflylabs.com/products/

Power consumption wasn't part of the advertised performance then and it isn't now. The only advertised performance was the hash rate. Given that the 5 GH/s units are currently shipping, then the bet most certainly should have resolved to a "yes".

I agree with you. BetBet has ripped off those who bet "yes".

Rodyland

hero member

Activity: 499

Merit: 500