Topic: First BFL ASIC! - page 21. (Read 58260 times)

Some assembly "is required". LOL.

You also need "a Luke Jr." to finish programming the software for the device. He is not included in the box with your single order.

Oh and the PCB shown is being revised as the COO of BFL has said that the device is utilizing a dangerous load within the designed parameters of the device....

This means that they have to redo the PCB (yes they admitted this) *before* shipping the final product out to customers.

See how that works?

It's good enough for Luke Jr. But not for every other customer. Who's to even say Josh isn't lying and Luke will get a different machine that consumes far less power. (a revised model that is different from the one shown in the picture at BFL labs.)

I would opinionate and say this constitutes a knowing, willing intent and intelligently thought out fraud/scheme of some kind being enacted against the betting pool.

I see exactly what it says.  The conditions say nothing about the title.  See this part

"For this statement to be false, both of the two following conditions must be met:"

In a court of law this could go either way.

No kidding. It is pretty easy to call.

Just the shipping part of the bet is pretty....darn obvious.

Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:


"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met



"device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" - Condition Met


Too much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is: True -- BFL has not shipped before April 1st, 2013

Which you asked them to ship to you later on....

Again, they haven't "shipped" it. It's not even complete nor fully assembled (and fully functioning and an end user product.

This bet is way too easy to call if you aren't distorting and contorting conclusions.

---------------------------

There is an easy standard to apply. You intended to have it shipped to you. You have said openly on the forum that you decline to give that tracking information publicly when it does come. So it is circumstantial that it was left in BFL's hands and they have yet to complete their official duty of shipping it to your home/residence.

Fact: It was incomplete.

Fact: It is not a retail model. (as in, a finished product)

Fact: You want it to be removed from BFL (or it's employees care) and shipped to you overseas via a courier.

Fact: BFL has not finished fulfilling your order to its intended destination. (requires shipping as of April 1st.)
------------------------

Conclusion: BFL lost the bet.

The level of denial by which the BFL business model is supported by their customers is astonishing. It's only paralleled by the level of denial citizens have in the trustworthy conduct of their political leaders and government.

Every denial which has a beginning, has an end. I see the end coming BFL.

It was before April 01 in some timezones though, and a timezone wasn't specified.  Whether it met the April 1 requirement or not is kind of a toss up.

The credibility of the information provided is tainted. The decision should be pretty clear cut.

I don't have any stake in any of these bets, but am confused how the obvious decision hasn't been made yet.
BFL lost, and i suggest next time make the terms more clear to avoid this from happening again.

The post was made at April 01, 2013, 05:36:32 AM so therefore it was not made before April 1st.

This.

1) The fact that BFL seems to care more about winning a bet than delivering a solid product to customers speaks volumes.

2) The way they tried to win this bet speaks volumes about the dishonest way they conduct their business. It is borderline scammy.

I'm sorry, but as far as BFL customers are concerned this is a FAIL on two counts. Regardless if BFL wins this silly bet or not. Get a clue folks and set your priorities straight.

Did you see the giant bolded text at the top of the page?



See that word "ship". Nothing shipped.

vote: NOT SHIPPED

"and report its hashrate."

Was the hashrate reported? Does single picture of setup with this info on screen count as report?

It's quite hard to say what are the exact terms and was the statement true even if conditions are barely met.

At the least community will learn to word these bets better.

Seems to me that it fails here: "shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee."

There were NO PHOTOs of the device they are selling.  There was a photo of a test board.   I believe if you go to their website you can see the fancy boxes they are packing the guts in.  I do NOT see any photos of the thing that "luke jr" (no Josh Zerlan according to the photo info) took pictures of.   Can you send me to the place on the website where I can buy that "thing"?

For this statement to be false, both of the two following conditions must be met:

• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.

• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.

It seems to me that both of the conditions were met.  Where in the conditions does it say anything about shipping? 

I can't believe this is actually being debated.

Unofficial BFL News ‏@BFL_News 2h
* Chips count per device may change, depending on results this week

Unofficial BFL News ‏@BFL_News 2h
* New boards testing this week.  (...)  I'd guess shipping next week.

I think betsofbitco.in is now debating setting a precedent: what constitutes acontract, the intent of the bet or what is written in the terms? Does the title count as terms? On time based bets, what determines the time? In the lack of clarity of definitions, does betsofbitco.in have to stand in and interpret? For example, betsofbitco.in now has to define what "shipping," "device," "by April 1," and "post on a forum" means in order to set a precedence. You can say "but it is obvious," and it may be "obvious" that they lost the "spirit" of the bet - but now betsofbitco.in has to decide whether they want to be in the business of deciphering what the "spirit" of contracts is.

Is the title part of the contract? This may be "obvious" to many, but it is never defined - BoB has to declare that it is, and this can be a time to do it. They just as easily can say, "only the terms in the text count" - either way they are about to declare one or the other.

"shipping" If i hand it to you and you hand it back, is that "shipping"? It legally counts as delivery but is that in the spirit of the bet (and who decides what the spirit of the bet means?)

"device" does a working, but unpackaged and not brought into a fully realizable form, device count?

"by April 1" what time zone? Do we care what the contract end time is? The bet says it ends April 1 at end of day Eastern time. What is end of day? 5 pm? Midnight? Does it even matter because it should have been March 31 at midnight UTC?

"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" What if the time stamp on the photo is before April 1 but the post is after? What if they post credible photos of the device and it is not in their possession?

Should BoB even be answering these questions?


As "obvious" as this appears, there may be just enough ambiguity for BoB to not want to set precedence. Now you know why lawyers write the way the do, they can only use precise language which has been proven to stand up in court. This is an example of case law that betsofbitco.in needs to establish.

There's nothing to debate about. You must consider all of the text of the contract. The title is part of the contract. You cannot ignore it. The title says "shipped", and BFL didn't "ship" anything. Case closed.

Ok, people know I am a BFL supporter and have a bet against Micon as to when they will ship, etc.  But I'll say that I can't see any way in which BFL shipped a device before April 1, or any way that this bets of bitcoin bet could conclude otherwise.

Even if you use the technical wording of the bet and do not include the text of the title as being part of the requirement (which I certainly would), some conditions of the bet were not met.

Now, where I disagree with Micon is that coinjedi is in the wrong here.  I think it is absolutely prudent and necessary to take time and gather all the facts before making a final decision involving tens of thousands of dollars (this is a several hundred BTC bet, is it not?).  So, I applaud coinjedi for not rushing to a decision in the event of a close call, which this certainly is.  On the surface, it seems obvious to most people what the outcome should be, but because there is disagreement, coinjedi is right to take his time in deciding the proper result of the bet.

If he somehow concludes that BFL DID ship a unit before April 1st, then and only then would I lose faith in betsofbitco.in.