Quote from: maqifrnswa on April 01, 2013, 05:50:54 PM

Quote from: Dalkore on April 01, 2013, 05:21:16 PM

Disclosure: I do not have any stake in the outcome of the "BFL Ships ASIC before April 1st" bet.

With that said, from what I have read and the details about the unit not being in the possession of Luke-Jr, it being on the test bench and Luke not being with the unit. Also mentioning that BFL likely violated their own 1/3 shipping plan, shows that this was more of a STUNTto win a bet and not a real shipment.

Verdict: Bet is lost

Sidenote: It is promising to finally see this type of progress from BFL and we should not berate them so harshly when they really gave people information they have been craving. I know they are late and have done many objectionable tactics, but you can't burn them on the stake for this one. It is good to see that information released.

I think the general consensus is that they lost the bet, but people are fighting over what is the reason why the lost the bet. For those that have not actually read the text of the bet:
"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's true that none of those conditions mention anything about shipping, but the "Before April 1" line stands out. In the absence of a time zone specification, I'd go with UTC. It's up to the BoB to figure out what the timezone is and then sift through the remaining points.

Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013 - This is the title. It is quite specific. If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths. Even comparisons from the representative of the company (BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled. By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about. What more do you really need? Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong. I am sorry to say it but it is true.

Am I wrong on this?

Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording? Please think about the previous statement before just responding. Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that? I can't really see how that was not the case. This is my argument.

Disclosure: I did not bet on this claim