Topic: First BFL ASIC! - page 10. (Read 58321 times)
If you think that an unfinished product can be "shipped" you must be brain damaged or trolling.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
As much as I was rooting for BFL in the past (I even asked them for one to test for the first Bitcoin Magazine and was so overjoyed out how stylish their boxes looked over typical "nerdy"-but-functional, ones), I can't help but agree that this bet smells fishy. It's me-style bet wriggling, except they're actually a serious company. I am starting to rethink my position on whether they are a giant scam, and everyone working for them being bribed or what (not because I want to think badly of them, but because it seems to happen more and more in this over-trusting community of pathetic hopefuls).
I hope this is investigated more and this community continues to grow more skeptical (not abusive mind you) of promise, regardless of how many fans are in a box.
I hope this is investigated more and this community continues to grow more skeptical (not abusive mind you) of promise, regardless of how many fans are in a box.
It mentioned the product being shipped to a customer and working.
Did it mention a finished product?
Logically speaking, why would they ship it if it wasn't complete?
There are many reasons, and all of them are irrelevant.
Any betting house who questions that BFL has NOT shipped to customers is in my blacklist.
oh fuck not muyuu's blacklist!
The product is not finished. End of story. With judgement like that I can only assume they are corrupt.
Did the bet specifically mention the product being finished?
It mentioned the product being shipped to a customer and working. Logically speaking, why would they ship it if it wasn't complete?
I think that's the bulk of Muyuu's reply--if it's not even done, of course they aren't going to ship it to a paying customer.
Any betting house who questions that BFL has NOT shipped to customers is in my blacklist.
oh fuck not muyuu's blacklist!
The product is not finished. End of story. With judgement like that I can only assume they are corrupt.
Did the bet specifically mention the product being finished?
Any betting house who questions that BFL has NOT shipped to customers is in my blacklist.
The product is not finished. End of story. With judgement like that I can only assume they are corrupt.
The product is not finished. End of story. With judgement like that I can only assume they are corrupt.
I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
It was still March 31 in some parts of the world, and a timezone wasn't specified as part of the bet.I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
The BoB site states that all deadline times are US EST.
Although!!
I just realize a technical problem: The description says "Before April 1st" yet the settings for the statement are set for end of day, April 1st. It's obvious the submitter thought choosing April 1st would mean 12 am April first, when it actually means 11:59pm April 1st. I guess that is enough of a technicality to allow the losers to argue for a draw
Still, others have posted multiple reasons why the statement is false, and I haven't yet seen any compelling reasons why it's true...?
E: Small correction, I bet "Agree". I was sure they would not ship before April 1.
How was this post credible? Pictures were taking by josh - an employee and mailed over.
at first i was disappointed in verdict, because clearly BFL didn't shipped anything (and i think they won't ship anytime soon). but now i think bet judge did good job. bet was faulty and cound not be resolved with this set of events.
it is clear that only purpose of this topic and those photos was to change outcome of BoB bet. i wonder who is behind it and how much he bet for BFL. however i see nothing wrong in trying to win bet with any (fair) means available.
so unless bet was formulated to be ambiguous on purpose there is no scam here.
it is clear that only purpose of this topic and those photos was to change outcome of BoB bet. i wonder who is behind it and how much he bet for BFL. however i see nothing wrong in trying to win bet with any (fair) means available.
so unless bet was formulated to be ambiguous on purpose there is no scam here.
I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
It was still March 31 in some parts of the world, and a timezone wasn't specified as part of the bet.I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
The BoB site states that all deadline times are US EST.
Although!!
I just realize a technical problem: The description says "Before April 1st" yet the settings for the statement are set for end of day, April 1st. It's obvious the submitter thought choosing April 1st would mean 12 am April first, when it actually means 11:59pm April 1st. I guess that is enough of a technicality to allow the losers to argue for a draw
Still, others have posted multiple reasons why the statement is false, and I haven't yet seen any compelling reasons why it's true...?
E: Small correction, I bet "Agree". I was sure they would not ship before April 1.
I have a feeling that this is just a cleverly orchestrated transaction. Keeping people arguing about the bet vs. when/if they are actually going to deliver.
Up until I found the following quote, I would have argued that Luke would not be considered an employee of BFL. But now I'm not too sure. I probably still lean toward the not side of the fence, but you guys figure it out.
Butterfly Labs, of course, knows this fact because I have been working with them since early 2012 when their FPGA products were first released.
On the other hand, the troll duo (Con & Kano) were strictly GPU mining until much later, when they decided to fork my code instead of continuing to update in a collaborative way.
Why, OH WHY, Are they choosing BFGminer? Seriously ugggh, Its just a clone of CGMiner T^T
No, you have it backward. cgminer is just a clone of BFGMiner as far as FPGAs/drivers are concerned.Butterfly Labs, of course, knows this fact because I have been working with them since early 2012 when their FPGA products were first released.
On the other hand, the troll duo (Con & Kano) were strictly GPU mining until much later, when they decided to fork my code instead of continuing to update in a collaborative way.
I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?
I talk to Josh on a regular basis, usually between midnight and 2 AM.I don't see the relevance of your question, or why the pictures seem at all a surprise.
Probably because shortly before the time the photos were posted, you made a comment along the lines of "I'll post a photo of my BFL product soon", when really it was Josh posting a photo of a prototype they had in their lab that you were SSH'd into.
That reeks of collusion, duplicity, and dishonesty.
I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
It was still March 31 in some parts of the world, and a timezone wasn't specified as part of the bet. I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
Oh my gosh i was blinded by hope, It could totally just be a freaking FPGA mini rig
I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
Timestamps can be ambiguous, therefore every single bet on BoB should be considered a draw when they expire for this has set a precedence.
I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?
I talk to Josh on a regular basis, usually between midnight and 2 AM.I don't see the relevance of your question, or why the pictures seem at all a surprise.
Thank you, Luke, for at least answering question.
Later, bud.
~Bruno K~
I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?
I talk to Josh on a regular basis, usually between midnight and 2 AM.I don't see the relevance of your question, or why the pictures seem at all a surprise.
I'm pretty pissed over this bet being canceled. (http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701)
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
I had betted "disagree".
I started with betsofbitco.in recently, and so far I've only lost and had bets cancelled. I thought this was my first sure win, completely indisputable, and then it gets cancelled too!!
In the editor's note they start out talking about the title being ambiguous, which I think doesn't matter in this case. The biggest problem for me is that they then state "On the other hand the conditions in the description are met." But they aren't. The first condition says "before April 1st" yet this thread wasn't started until 1:36 AM EST on April 1st.
If every condition is true, the statement is true. If any condition is false, the statement is false. No matter if you include the title or not in this one, the statement is false because one of the conditions was false.
People have also said that both sides have compelling arguments so there was no choice but to cancel it. But what is the argument for the "all conditions were met" people? How can you possibly argue that it happened before April 1st with the timestamp stating otherwise?
And wouldn't the bet have been worded that way so that no other product later introduce can meet the requirements in the bet?
Yes, it most cleary was:
Quote
This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.966886
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.966886
That's exactly what I was saying, but I may have worded it incorrectly. It made sense when I wrote it and proofread it twice, but now seems odd. Time for a couple 750mg Vicodins. Which reminds me, I need to reorder. Wait! I can't. My coins are tied up for 90 days or (insert infinity symbol here). (joking about the V's and SR)
And wouldn't the bet have been worded that way so that no other product later introduce can meet the requirements in the bet?
Yes, it most cleary was:
Quote
This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.966886
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.966886
I'm goin' to ask again, since I've yet to see an answer. How was Luke notified by Josh that the images were ready to be posted, given that they were taken less than 30 minutes prior?
Jump to: