As it is part of running a betting service, sometimes we have to make some decisions that will not please all of our users. This is certainly one of these cases. I agree that the bet description statements are barely satisfied but the bet is actually on "shipping" of a commercial product. To the best of our judgment the pictured device is still an internal development unit within the company premises, even if it is somehow "owned" by a non-employee. As far as I can see even BFL doesn't officially claim shipping. Under these circumstances we can not rule the statement as false. Our decision is currently not final and we will be listening your input for a few days before the final decision. Feel free to raise your opinion.
As I understand it, BFL's "shipping" refers to their Batch 1 which has special shipping constraints. The plan to provide units to developers in advance, including the ones I paid for such as this Little Single, has been there all along, so it would be unreasonable IMO to exclude it from the bet.
I believe you should be able to verify that I have no stake in the bet (unless it's semi-anonymous or something); I have no objections if you wish to disclose that.
Luke-Jr - Why did you request BFL to keep the unit? Being that you are a developer wouldn't it been in everyone's best interest that you keep the unit? Doesn't this seem odd? It seems like there were some additional issues that you and BFL are working through. In that case, wouldn't it be fair to say that these units have not "shipped"? It has to be one or the other, wouldn't you say? If a developer who has much technical expertise can not take his unit then how could we say it is shipping? I am just trying to understand your position.
Thank you in advance. Thank you again for all your hard work.
+1
I, too, respect Luke and Kano for all they do.
Full Disclosure: I did not bet on this position, nor care its outcome, albeit I heavily lean toward the what's-right-is-right side of the fence.