Topic: [topic topiary] Trolling thread topologically tossed from the terrane - page 2. (Read 6204 times)

I think that is already pretty clear that they outright lied about the delivery date. They knew it was not possible
but wanted to get on the money train first which worked beautifully for them.

Proof? I have none except what has taken place. Anyone with common sense can see it.

But this forum does not give out scammer tags until a moderator or one of their friends lose a buck.

If BFL were flat out lying about anything while accepting pre-order money sent to them on the basis of their setting false expectations, they are scammers in my book.

It is quite possible that Bitcoin mining ASIC could at some point down the road become an inexpensive commodity.  If BFL sits on the pre-order money (or spends it on hookers and blow) while waiting for that point then, buys enough to get the pre-order monkey off their back, yes, they delivered, and yes, they are scammers.

Your appear to have cast the net for a "scam" so wide that even if they deliver you could still consider it to be a scam. I don't understand; why do you use "scam" like this when you must surely know that that isn't how the other 99% of the English-speaking population uses it?

One possible answer is that you intend to mislead. Politicians do this, as well as lawyers and marketers. They stretch a definition of a word wide enough to cover whatever they want (which logically throws away most of the meaning; strong meanings come from specific concepts) but act like the rest of the meaning is still there. The result is that they can convey a false message without directly lying.

Eg. Politician A claims that B is "wasting billions", except A has defined waste to be "anything I wouldn't spend it on", but they hope the public will interpret it as "anything a reasonable person wouldn't spend it on" so that they think that B is a moron. It's not quite lying by omission, but I might call it lying by unjustified substitution.

You're not doing that, right? That would be bad.

Yes, and more than that.  I started out with a general musing on how long it would be before 'marks' of a hypothetical ASIC scam operation got suspicious when there was a failure to deliver.  I didn't say anything about BFL.


My conditions were designed to capture BFL lying about something they claimed when they were in the hunt for pre-order victims.  That in and of itself qualifies them as scammers in my book.  (If it was 65nm or nothing at all that they claimed, then I'll adjust my conditions accordingly.)  I'm expecting various information to leak out as time goes by.  Some will be verifiable and/or probably reliable and some not.  I don't expect to win this thing on a technicality and don't wish to lose it on one either.  If BFL really was working diligently on an ASIC and they just ran into some bad luck (with timings and what-not as claimed) then I certainly would consider myself the loser of this bet.

Of course I do not know that BFL are scammers, but I think it probable enough at this point that I'll risk 20BTC on it.  Particularly if it would go to a good cause (even though I was among the few who stated reservations about the foundation in the thread discussing it.)

If my definition of a scammer and yours do not align well enough to place a wager on it then it is probably best not to do so.  Or, as seems to be the case here, you do not wish to have your funds backstopped by BFL's existence as a honest and up-front operator I would completely understand

I do not like the stipulations outlined in id=665 for several reasons.  Among them, the opportunity for BFL to simply buy someone elses technology exist.  And, of course, being 10 months behind schedule is questionable to say the least.

Here, in this thread: you stated, as if it was a matter of fact: "[they] never did have any plan or make any steps toward actually producing an ASIC Bitcoin mining chip." That is a very blunt statement!

Am I misreading your "certainty"?

If so, would you want to retract this statement?

I suggest you edit your post to communicate what you truly meant, for example your UNcertainty by saying "I believe there is a chance that they never did plan to..."?


These conditions (60nm, Oct 2012...) effectively retract the statement you made above ("[they] never did have any plan or make any steps toward actually producing an ASIC Bitcoin mining chip"), as you seem to want to redefine the bet so that you win even if BFL makes ASIC(!) that would not quite match the exact specs and timeline they claimed.

So, I did push you to reject a bet that ASICs will not be produced, after all  

Your new position actually matches closely what I believe myself (me too I doubt they could have feasibly made the chips alone by Oct 2012, and me too I doubt they will use 60nm, I estimate they will use 65nm.)

Therefore where is our disagreement, what can we bet on?

My beliefs are very precisely defined in: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=665 Will you take them as they are written? You will notice they make performance efficiency claims (350+ Mhash/Joule) that can be measured by anybody (as opposed to betting on "60nm", since it would be harder to verify). I do have 20+ BTC available.

PS: Graet is an escrow often use for hardware sales. I like the idea of the losing bet being gifted to the Bitcoin Foundation.

Hey PL,looks like the same thing at bASIC's camp,minus the "adventure"   



https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=1afa765ac324f84b55fc60383a5cdf42&topic=882.30

Find an example of where I was 'so certain' that BFL was a scam.  I've never been 'certain' of this, but it is true that I've been suspicious for some time and I grow more suspicious by the day.

A trouble with bets of this nature is that it is both very cumbersome to line out the details of what constitutes a win or loss.

That said, I am at this point pretty sure that BFL is a scam by my definition.  Here's the deal I would do, and I'll do it for 20 BTC (assuming my spending money is still available in instawallet and I don't have to go to my deep storage):

1) BFL had no program which could have feasibly produced, in time for their initial announced ship date of Oct 2012,
1a) a 60nm ASIC dedicated to Bitcoin mining
1b) largely their own design or a design commissioned by them for their exclusive use
1c) and for use only by them if _they_ so chose

AND

2) BFL fails to deliver a device utilizing a chip as described in 1) by Q2/2013

While BFL is tight-lipped, they gave every indication that the conditions of 1) were true so I consider them scammers if that turns out not to be the case.  2) just puts an end-date on this bet.

In the off-chance that BFL delivers anything by 04/2013, it may still be difficult to determine if it achieves the conditions of 1).  If this cannot be understood by a majority of observers based on what seemingly reliable info leaks out, the bet is annulled and the bettors get their BTC back.  (Put another way, you don't win the bet if Josh buys an Avalon and sells it to someone.)

I don't know Graet.  If he can explain why he would be interested in wasting his time on such a trifling thing to my satisfaction, he can serve as an arbitrator and escrow (in conjunction with other interested parties reading this note.)  My specifications are easy enough for most observers to understand (and fairly reasonable) so I imagine that Graet and Ozcoin would do a good job of arbitration.

If I win the bet, I'll take my 20 BTC back and your 20 BTC can go straight from the escrow to the Bitcoin Foundation.

What say ye?

By your own words, this is not a game of chance, since you are so certain that ASIC designers are swindlers who never plan to make an ASIC.
Or... are you saying there is a chance that ASICs are legitimate?


Fine. I offer you to take this bet, 1:1 odds against me, but with coins escrowed by a trusted third-party. I suggest Graet (operator of ozcoin, who will not take a cut). Deal?

I don't play around with penny-ante games of chance.  I normally target large long term trends.  Generally speaking winning such a bet would be a hollow victory and losing one would utterly suck.  One way or another, I'm don't trust anyone to sit on my BTC, and in particular not some scungy betting parlor operator (who will want a cut.)

BTW, I never mentioned BFL by name, but I can see why that might match the pattern I am drawing as they have more than their fair share of red flags.  And since they have the record of the longest failure-to-deliver (and had the most aggressive rope-a-dope sales campaign) they are a prime candidate to do the type of analysis that I'm interested in on.

Better yet, why don't you all fund this guys adventure?

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/644-new-facility-update-has-anyone-ever-visited-got-idea.html



His bitcoin talk name is https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/jmcgrath-56447 (JMcGrath)

He stated he had a fear that BFL would cancel his orders. I wonder if BFL will cancel all his orders now that he intends to check up on them directly?

Please put your money were your mouth is by betting against "Butterfly Labs ASIC is real".
Right now your side is at 51.55 BTC. If you are right, you will roughly triple your coins.
But I suspect you are full of it, and are not going to bet a single coin...

Stop stealing my lines! It helps if you add some wordy confabulations. Don't get me started.

It might be the most entertaining thread ever!  

I mean 'Swindled' as in flat out swindled.  By people who noticed that with a little effort and some industry-specific lingo they could get a lot of people to send them money.  And never did have any plan or make any steps toward actually producing an ASIC Bitcoin mining chip.

I also have not seen a lot of any customers express the belief that they'll never receive their ASICS in spite of the now 4 month delays.  What I am musing about is how many months (or years) without delivery would the condition exist.  And what would be the shape of the slope formed by 'marks' losing hope.

See the first post in this thread.

Oh really? What makes you think that I haven't?

still the best Avalon thread.

Not in my experience, watch me

And I'm wondering how you've not grasped the recursive paradox of attempting to troll a troll who's trolling a troll, who's trolling........

When you troll a troll you just make things worse.


With your vast intellect you should know that that doesn't work.

Reasonable appeals to stop OT posting like that which you have made have already gone completely unheeded by Josh and his finger puppet circus, I would recommend directing such pleas at the prime offenders instead of at myself. I have spent several months refraining from addressing it directly, but this creature is so unrelentingly shameless that I'm not willing to put up with it any longer.

Repentance's idea to lock the threads for ASIC project reps to post news only has been suggested before, but not taken up so far. I can see how it would be hard to make it work; Josh would only find some other way to abuse such a structure. I will be abusing him and his poorly constructed shill accounts until he shuts the fuck up. Nothing unreasonable about this, I'm surprised that everyone else has been so accommodating of his lamp-post urinating territory marking for so long