Time to sue ButterflyLabs - Big Single-SC owner let's league for class action - page 20.

Unacceptable

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:49:12 AM

Quote from: Unacceptable on August 26, 2013, 12:47:06 AM

Quote from: YipYip on August 26, 2013, 12:30:39 AM

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:09:30 AM

Quote from: DrJoeGrine on August 25, 2013, 11:59:55 PM

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

I make no excuses.

We saw the delays would be long and painful for our customers to wait and would adversely affect their ROI. As a cooperative we decided that we had to start refunding proactively as that was only fair and ethical course of action. We were very explicit not to use the BTC collected from our customers in fact some of the delays in our initial refunds were caused by the fact we had put all the BTC into cold paper storage and took nearly 3 days to get them back in the hands of the cooperative so we could refund people. And we apologized to no ends for our slow and utterly useless handling of refunds.

We don't hide behind Avalon's failure to provide chips in time for fabrication. We are the ones who cancelled the project we take full responsibility for it's failure. Will the K1 be our last project... no. I am sure our collective decision was the right one and I hope the majority of our customers and the community see this for what it is the right action for the right moment. Did we make mistakes of course we did, could we have waited longer... of course. Will we be stopping there... no.

There is a huge difference between what we want for the community and what BFL wants. We want to help support DIY and miners and hopefully that can happen with our next project. We are very upset with our failure and we know we let down BKKCoins but we really didn't want to have more people held hostage so we had to cut the K1 off.

Respect is earnt not given....

Let me know anytime soon you have another venture as honestly you will have my business....

Ethical & Honest = Awesome Cheesy

Here,here!!!!!! I'm watching & waiting for your next project too Wink

I think I know who's chips your going to use next.............& we all know who's your NOT going to use Cheesy

LOL you do?

Tell me we are still looking at a few of them (Not BFL or Avalon obviously). Bitfury we let slip... but there is certainly a lot of them coming to market soon in a variety of shapes and forms so like the Avalon chips there is going to be a very very limited window for BF I imagine.

Well,there's only 3 to choose from & Bitfury ain't one Huh

Down to 2

Unless I missed a vendor or 2 Roll Eyes

bcp19

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:40:26 AM

Josh, would you be so kind as to state which, what and when the screen was passed by the FCC? Us monumental assholes ain't got a clue as to how the FCC site works and desperately need your expertise in helping us find the info.

As soon as you show us, I will send that $200 I owe you/BFL, and you can use if for whatevery you want. It doesn't have to go to any charity. You, Sonny, and your wifes/lady friends can go to a fancy restaurant and enjoy a fine meal using the funds. No problem here, bud.

All you have to do is show us monumental assholes where to look, and your golden, and we're square.

I'll also take a week off and not state one iota negative comment about you, Sonny, BFL, et al. I promise... I mean Honest Abe.

Bruno Kucinskas
406 W. Center St.
Sandwich, IL 60548

815-508-1668

I've been thinking... what if they are certified and he just doesn't want to tell you so he can laugh at you repeating yourselves?

Naw, no one is THAT cruel... Oh, wait, *I* would be Cheesy

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Unacceptable on August 26, 2013, 12:47:06 AM

Quote from: YipYip on August 26, 2013, 12:30:39 AM

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:09:30 AM

Quote from: DrJoeGrine on August 25, 2013, 11:59:55 PM

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

I make no excuses.

We saw the delays would be long and painful for our customers to wait and would adversely affect their ROI. As a cooperative we decided that we had to start refunding proactively as that was only fair and ethical course of action. We were very explicit not to use the BTC collected from our customers in fact some of the delays in our initial refunds were caused by the fact we had put all the BTC into cold paper storage and took nearly 3 days to get them back in the hands of the cooperative so we could refund people. And we apologized to no ends for our slow and utterly useless handling of refunds.

We don't hide behind Avalon's failure to provide chips in time for fabrication. We are the ones who cancelled the project we take full responsibility for it's failure. Will the K1 be our last project... no. I am sure our collective decision was the right one and I hope the majority of our customers and the community see this for what it is the right action for the right moment. Did we make mistakes of course we did, could we have waited longer... of course. Will we be stopping there... no.

There is a huge difference between what we want for the community and what BFL wants. We want to help support DIY and miners and hopefully that can happen with our next project. We are very upset with our failure and we know we let down BKKCoins but we really didn't want to have more people held hostage so we had to cut the K1 off.

Respect is earnt not given....

Let me know anytime soon you have another venture as honestly you will have my business....

Ethical & Honest = Awesome Cheesy

Here,here!!!!!! I'm watching & waiting for your next project too Wink

I think I know who's chips your going to use next.............& we all know who's your NOT going to use Cheesy

LOL you do?

Tell me we are still looking at a few of them (Not BFL or Avalon obviously). Bitfury we let slip... but there is certainly a lot of them coming to market soon in a variety of shapes and forms so like the Avalon chips there is going to be a very very limited window for BF I imagine.

Unacceptable

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1001

Quote from: YipYip on August 26, 2013, 12:30:39 AM

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:09:30 AM

Quote from: DrJoeGrine on August 25, 2013, 11:59:55 PM

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

I make no excuses.

We saw the delays would be long and painful for our customers to wait and would adversely affect their ROI. As a cooperative we decided that we had to start refunding proactively as that was only fair and ethical course of action. We were very explicit not to use the BTC collected from our customers in fact some of the delays in our initial refunds were caused by the fact we had put all the BTC into cold paper storage and took nearly 3 days to get them back in the hands of the cooperative so we could refund people. And we apologized to no ends for our slow and utterly useless handling of refunds.

We don't hide behind Avalon's failure to provide chips in time for fabrication. We are the ones who cancelled the project we take full responsibility for it's failure. Will the K1 be our last project... no. I am sure our collective decision was the right one and I hope the majority of our customers and the community see this for what it is the right action for the right moment. Did we make mistakes of course we did, could we have waited longer... of course. Will we be stopping there... no.

There is a huge difference between what we want for the community and what BFL wants. We want to help support DIY and miners and hopefully that can happen with our next project. We are very upset with our failure and we know we let down BKKCoins but we really didn't want to have more people held hostage so we had to cut the K1 off.

Respect is earnt not given....

Let me know anytime soon you have another venture as honestly you will have my business....

Ethical & Honest = Awesome Cheesy

Here,here!!!!!! I'm watching & waiting for your next project too Wink

I think I know who's chips your going to use next.............& we all know who's your NOT going to use Cheesy

YipYip

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:40:26 AM

Josh, would you be so kind as to state which, what and when the screen was passed by the FCC? Us monumental assholes ain't got a clue as to how the FCC site works and desperately need your expertise in helping us find the info.

As soon as you show us, I will send that $200 I owe you/BFL, and you can use if for whatevery you want. It doesn't have to go to any charity. You, Sonny, and your wifes/lady friends can go to a fancy restaurant and enjoy a fine meal using the funds. No problem here, bud.

All you have to do is show us monumental assholes where to look, and your golden, and we're square.

I'll also take a week off and not state one iota negative comment about you, Sonny, BFL, et al. I promise... I mean Honest Abe.

Bruno Kucinskas
406 W. Center St.
Sandwich, IL 60548

815-508-1668

I think he is waiting for a generous discount offer on Barnwood ....

He drives a hardwood bargain ...lolz

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Josh, would you be so kind as to state which, what and when the screen was passed by the FCC? Us monumental assholes ain't got a clue as to how the FCC site works and desperately need your expertise in helping us find the info.

As soon as you show us, I will send that $200 I owe you/BFL, and you can use if for whatevery you want. It doesn't have to go to any charity. You, Sonny, and your wifes/lady friends can go to a fancy restaurant and enjoy a fine meal using the funds. No problem here, bud.

All you have to do is show us monumental assholes where to look, and your golden, and we're square.

I'll also take a week off and not state one iota negative comment about you, Sonny, BFL, et al. I promise... I mean Honest Abe.

Bruno Kucinskas
406 W. Center St.
Sandwich, IL 60548

815-508-1668

Red_Wolf_2

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:32:27 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:20:21 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Hows this for a theory:
Original board sent off for certification, then BFL discover they have to redesign anyway. Cancels request for testing to be performed.
That makes what Josh said true, however the end result is a device not certified. Makes sense given the revisions the devices were going through at the time. To add FCC certification back in further down the track would have resulted in a further delay which would have meant being raked over the coals for another Two Week delay.

Excellent theory, but does have one tiny, itsy bitsy flaw...

Quote

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

Spot the lie?

Entirely possible, they would have been testing the MCU and on board power regulators to identify any stray RF emissions. The chip itself would radiate very little due to being entirely the wrong size and shape to emit heavy RF interference.

So far we've had people saying it is and it isn't certified. We've had no proof from either side to back up their claims.

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:25:38 AM

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:20:37 AM

Quote from: Viceroy on August 26, 2013, 12:17:47 AM

Quote from: Viceroy on August 26, 2013, 12:10:58 AM

Josh which testing lab do you guys use to certify your products?

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm

You probably use this one, the only one in Kansas, right?

Rogers Labs, Inc.
Louisburg
06/27/2016
Scot Rogers

4405 West 259th Terrace
Louisburg   Kansas   66053
United States
[email protected]
913-837-3214
913-837-3214

See I looked through the 302 tests he's done and I can't seem to find any for "Butterfly Labs". Did you certify the hardware under a different name??

Guessing it failed and they buried it... easy to speculate when there is little or no 'transparency' with BFL.

Wouldn't it be FRAUD if he lied about the fact they were 2 weeks away from FCC approval and he never even sent it?

It doesn't matter if it failed or past. It would show up as being in the queue to be inspected as if you or I submitted some device tomorrow, by Wednesday it will be available on the FCC site for all to see. Frankly, I don't see how the FCC can get away with their full disclosure/transparency practices.

So wait... they never submitted the unit for testing? Pourquoi?
I mean he said it was going to be 2 weeks for the approval. Oh my what happened?

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:32:27 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:20:21 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Hows this for a theory:
Original board sent off for certification, then BFL discover they have to redesign anyway. Cancels request for testing to be performed.
That makes what Josh said true, however the end result is a device not certified. Makes sense given the revisions the devices were going through at the time. To add FCC certification back in further down the track would have resulted in a further delay which would have meant being raked over the coals for another Two Week delay.

Excellent theory, but does have one tiny, itsy bitsy flaw...

Quote

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

Spot the lie?

Oh oh I see it. Inaba posted something.

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: YipYip on August 26, 2013, 12:30:39 AM

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:09:30 AM

Quote from: DrJoeGrine on August 25, 2013, 11:59:55 PM

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

I make no excuses.

We saw the delays would be long and painful for our customers to wait and would adversely affect their ROI. As a cooperative we decided that we had to start refunding proactively as that was only fair and ethical course of action. We were very explicit not to use the BTC collected from our customers in fact some of the delays in our initial refunds were caused by the fact we had put all the BTC into cold paper storage and took nearly 3 days to get them back in the hands of the cooperative so we could refund people. And we apologized to no ends for our slow and utterly useless handling of refunds.

We don't hide behind Avalon's failure to provide chips in time for fabrication. We are the ones who cancelled the project we take full responsibility for it's failure. Will the K1 be our last project... no. I am sure our collective decision was the right one and I hope the majority of our customers and the community see this for what it is the right action for the right moment. Did we make mistakes of course we did, could we have waited longer... of course. Will we be stopping there... no.

There is a huge difference between what we want for the community and what BFL wants. We want to help support DIY and miners and hopefully that can happen with our next project. We are very upset with our failure and we know we let down BKKCoins but we really didn't want to have more people held hostage so we had to cut the K1 off.

Respect is earnt not given....

Let me know anytime soon you have another venture as honestly you will have my business....

Ethical & Honest = Awesome Cheesy

I will. Thank-you. I hope our coop will be able to maintain that sort of confidence in the community.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:20:21 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Hows this for a theory:
Original board sent off for certification, then BFL discover they have to redesign anyway. Cancels request for testing to be performed.
That makes what Josh said true, however the end result is a device not certified. Makes sense given the revisions the devices were going through at the time. To add FCC certification back in further down the track would have resulted in a further delay which would have meant being raked over the coals for another Two Week delay.

Excellent theory, but does have one tiny, itsy bitsy flaw...

Quote

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

Spot the lie?

k9quaint

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:20:21 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Hows this for a theory:
Original board sent off for certification, then BFL discover they have to redesign anyway.

With what chip in it? The first chips did not arrive at BFL until late Feb 2013. At that point they discovered the boards didn't work, their power estimates were screwed, and the Jalapeno's had to go into the case for the Singles and the Singles had to go in a larger case.

YipYip

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:09:30 AM

Quote from: DrJoeGrine on August 25, 2013, 11:59:55 PM

What is interesting is that Bick is being attacked for having the same issues that BFL fanbois are defending BFL for having ie Supply issues. They make excuses for BFL and the evil suppliers but have no understanding that Bick had the same issues with Avalon delays. He was upfront and refunded all his customers while BFL is not. This is very biased behavior.

I make no excuses.

We saw the delays would be long and painful for our customers to wait and would adversely affect their ROI. As a cooperative we decided that we had to start refunding proactively as that was only fair and ethical course of action. We were very explicit not to use the BTC collected from our customers in fact some of the delays in our initial refunds were caused by the fact we had put all the BTC into cold paper storage and took nearly 3 days to get them back in the hands of the cooperative so we could refund people. And we apologized to no ends for our slow and utterly useless handling of refunds.

We don't hide behind Avalon's failure to provide chips in time for fabrication. We are the ones who cancelled the project we take full responsibility for it's failure. Will the K1 be our last project... no. I am sure our collective decision was the right one and I hope the majority of our customers and the community see this for what it is the right action for the right moment. Did we make mistakes of course we did, could we have waited longer... of course. Will we be stopping there... no.

There is a huge difference between what we want for the community and what BFL wants. We want to help support DIY and miners and hopefully that can happen with our next project. We are very upset with our failure and we know we let down BKKCoins but we really didn't want to have more people held hostage so we had to cut the K1 off.

Respect is earnt not given....

Let me know anytime soon you have another venture as honestly you will have my business....

Ethical & Honest = Awesome Cheesy

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: k9quaint on August 26, 2013, 12:21:47 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

The point isn't about FCC compliance. The point is Josh claimed they were getting FCC compliance on devices that did not exist in November of 2012 (the chips had not arrived from the fab yet, let alone be bumped, packaged, and put on a board). Then, after someone noticed this huge disparity between what Josh was claiming in November and what reality was showing in January, he has since refused to answer any questions about it or even discuss it in any way.

Don't forget, this was before BFL discovered that the original Jalapeno form factor would not work. It was also before they got their boards to work right.
So there is no way they could have had a working device to send to the FCC. But his statement sure made it sound like BFL had sent working devices. Here is Inaba's statement about it:

Quote from: Inaba on November 03, 2012, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: abracadabra on November 02, 2012, 07:36:06 PM

When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?

Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

Fuck me! I keep forget this fact. The FCC couldn't inspect a unit that's not complete.

Time for Josh to come here and state in no uncertain terms that we don't know how the FCC works in 5...4...3...

Viceroy

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 501

I don't see them in the system at all:
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm

Red_Wolf_2

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on August 26, 2013, 12:20:21 AM

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Hows this for a theory:
Original board sent off for certification, then BFL discover they have to redesign anyway. Cancels request for testing to be performed.
That makes what Josh said true, however the end result is a device not certified. Makes sense given the revisions the devices were going through at the time. To add FCC certification back in further down the track would have resulted in a further delay which would have meant being raked over the coals for another Two Week delay.

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Bicknellski on August 26, 2013, 12:20:37 AM

Quote from: Viceroy on August 26, 2013, 12:17:47 AM

Quote from: Viceroy on August 26, 2013, 12:10:58 AM

Josh which testing lab do you guys use to certify your products?

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm

You probably use this one, the only one in Kansas, right?

Rogers Labs, Inc.
Louisburg
06/27/2016
Scot Rogers

4405 West 259th Terrace
Louisburg   Kansas   66053
United States
[email protected]
913-837-3214
913-837-3214

See I looked through the 302 tests he's done and I can't seem to find any for "Butterfly Labs". Did you certify the hardware under a different name??

Guessing it failed and they buried it... easy to speculate when there is little or no 'transparency' with BFL.

Wouldn't it be FRAUD if he lied about the fact they were 2 weeks away from FCC approval and he never even sent it?

It doesn't matter if it failed or past. It would show up as being in the queue to be inspected as if you or I submitted some device tomorrow, by Wednesday it will be available on the FCC site for all to see. Frankly, I don't see how the FCC can get away with their full disclosure/transparency practices.

k9quaint

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

The point isn't about FCC compliance. The point is Josh claimed they were getting FCC compliance on devices that did not exist in November of 2012 (the chips had not arrived from the fab yet, let alone be bumped, packaged, and put on a board). Then, after someone noticed this huge disparity between what Josh was claiming in November and what reality was showing in January, he has since refused to answer any questions about it or even discuss it in any way.

Don't forget, this was before BFL discovered that the original Jalapeno form factor would not work. It was also before they got their boards to work right.
So there is no way they could have had a working device to send to the FCC. But his statement sure made it sound like BFL had sent working devices. Here is Inaba's statement about it:

Quote from: Inaba on November 03, 2012, 01:03:19 AM

Quote from: abracadabra on November 02, 2012, 07:36:06 PM

When is the Jalapeno getting FCC approval?

Maybe two weeks? We are waiting for the test lab to issue the test report.

With the bump in power requirements on the MR and the new screen, we had to make changes, although the new screen is already certified. We are doing all the devices at once, since they all share the same board.

Bicknellski

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Viceroy on August 26, 2013, 12:17:47 AM

Quote from: Viceroy on August 26, 2013, 12:10:58 AM

Josh which testing lab do you guys use to certify your products?

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/TestFirmSearch.cfm

You probably use this one, the only one in Kansas, right?

Rogers Labs, Inc.
Louisburg
06/27/2016
Scot Rogers

4405 West 259th Terrace
Louisburg   Kansas   66053
United States
[email protected]
913-837-3214
913-837-3214

See I looked through the 302 tests he's done and I can't seem to find any for "Butterfly Labs". Did you certify the hardware under a different name??

Guessing it failed and they buried it... easy to speculate when there is little or no 'transparency' with BFL and the COO won't even respond to the question. Seems to be a pattern with these ASIC companies in trouble they seem to think no answer is good enough.

Wouldn't it be FRAUD if he lied about the fact they were 2 weeks away from FCC approval and he never even sent it?

Phinnaeus Gage

legendary

Activity: 1918

Merit: 1570

Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending

Quote from: Red_Wolf_2 on August 26, 2013, 12:09:09 AM

Why doesn't someone with an SDR just fire it up in proximity to a Jalapeno or something, and see if they can pick up any spurious transmissions. If there aren't any detectable at close range then can we let the FCC stuff just die? A huge number of devices are out there which are not FCC certified, and that law is very rarely applied proactively unless some very large businesses are involved (read as the Samsungs, Dells and Apples of this world).

If you have a concern and do want to talk to the FCC, go and get some hard data on how the device is potentially hazardous due to emitting unwanted RF interference and let them know.

Now, are we talking about FCC or CE certifications? Last time this discussion was had it was all about the CE mark...

You don't get it! Most here care less if BFL products are FCC certifiable or not. The issue is that Josh, acting in the capacity of BFL, lied about obtaining FCC cert for the sole purpose to garnering more sales, of which said task was accomplished.

Ergo, if they are capable of lying about something so mundane as this, what the fuck else are they hiding? The conclusion most have come to is a helluva lot!

Topic: Time to sue ButterflyLabs - Big Single-SC owner let's league for class action - page 20. (Read 39307 times)