Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 03, 2013, 05:17:05 AM

I think this accusation is too ridiculous to spend time typing up a defense (it's obviously bogus), but if any moderator is taking it seriously for any reason feel free to contact me.

yeah, don't spend any time on the defense. all these ppl from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.0;all are prolly crazy just like me:

Quote from: Frankie Delaney on April 02, 2013, 03:16:27 AM

Nothing was moved, nothing was shipped. picking one board on the test bench, taking a picture of it, and saying "that one belongs to some other guy, we shipped!" is retarded.

Quote from: Syke on April 02, 2013, 03:21:37 AM

"Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013"

A prototype sitting on a bench at BFL does not qualify as "shipped", no matter how much you fondled it.

Quote from: Xian01 on April 02, 2013, 04:13:03 AM

This is all we need to know. BFL has shipped nothing yet. No Easter Shipping Miracle was performed.

They have a working prototype that Luke-Jr has access to and is helping with software development.

Josh claiming on BFL chat last night that they shipped just seemed really disingenuous and slimy. Par for the course as far as Josh goes I suppose.

Quote from: AndyRossy on April 02, 2013, 04:49:16 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=164067.0

imo bet is true.

Quote from: redcomet on April 02, 2013, 05:31:44 AM

Grats and great job BFL!!

However for my 2 cents, the bet's outcome should be true. "Shipped" I think is the keyword here. I don't think anyone would agree that BFL has 'shipped' - sorry to those who might get mad at the outcome of this bet but hey, you can just mine back your losses right? Tongue

Disclosure: I did not bet on this

Quote from: marra on April 02, 2013, 09:58:42 AM

BFL doesn't have a working device.

Quote from: KGambler on April 02, 2013, 04:45:37 PM

I guess you have two options.

1. pay the obvious winners

2. pay the losers or cancel the bet, thus destroying the credibility your business relies upon

What a dilemma.

(no, I don't have any stake in the outcome of this bet. it does bother me to see people try and weasel out of debts though.)

Quote from: Dalkore on April 02, 2013, 05:00:53 PM

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

Quote from: SgtSpike on April 02, 2013, 06:36:05 PM

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.

I have a 50 coin bet w/SgtSpike, he is pro-BFL. He is also a gentleman bettor. This is obvious to us

Quote from: Syke on April 02, 2013, 06:39:24 PM

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.

Quote from: tbd on April 02, 2013, 07:09:14 PM

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.

Quote from: Minor Miner on April 02, 2013, 07:17:39 PM

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"?

Quote from: Ekaros on April 02, 2013, 07:23:37 PM

"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.

Quote from: 2weiX on April 02, 2013, 07:23:51 PM

vote: NOT SHIPPED

Quote from: peasant on April 02, 2013, 07:31:30 PM

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.

Quote from: Korbman on April 02, 2013, 07:42:47 PM

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

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.

"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

Quote from: jermwerty on April 02, 2013, 11:29:50 PM

My vote is this is an engineering sample. This is not "shipped" to customer. "Shipped" indicates a full working unit in the customers hands at the customer premesis. Clearly this is not.

"at least one BFL customer" - debatable as this occured at BFL's location, the device is not actually with the customer
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - OK
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - OK
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - OK
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - debatable at this point

As for 75% of advertised hashrate, the answer is NO.

"Advertised" was 60Ghash. Just because they revised it to 30GH at the last second doesn't meet the definition when the bets were placed. 23GH is 76% of 30GH.

GRASPING. AT. STRAWS.

Quote from: Gator-hex on April 03, 2013, 12:13:52 AM

Not only did the ASIC not leave the BFL lab, so was never shipped anywhere

but also this..

Quote

This customer cannot be a BFL employee.

Luke Jr was flown in on BLFs dollar to code their software so is an employee!

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/97-preparing-my-trip-bfl.html

How many other "customers" where flown in at BFL's expense?

Quote from: Bogart on April 03, 2013, 02:17:44 AM

Pictures were not posted until April. Bet outcome should be true.

Very disappointed to see this after BoB specially solicited feedback, and the feedback being pretty much overwhelmingly in support of the true outcome.

What, did it have to be unanimous? What was the point?

Quote from: hanti on April 03, 2013, 02:29:47 AM

Code:

One of your bets at Bets of Bitcoin has been decided as a draw and refunded. Details are below:
Statement: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013
Link: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701
Your side: Agree
Your bet amount: 0.25

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in

bye betsofbitco.in

Quote from: tbd on April 03, 2013, 02:32:54 AM

It is very clear that the conditions are not met --

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

That message refers to a press release here:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Containing:
"2) BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299"

The second condition of the bet:
The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.

40 * .75 = 30. That rate was not met.

Quote from: Zotia on April 03, 2013, 02:42:12 AM

I'm so pissed at betsofbitco.in right now.

They owe me THOUSANDS of dollars from that bet.

Quote from: johnniewalker on April 03, 2013, 03:04:41 AM

BULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT

bestofbitco.in, you are now on the same level as BFL

Scammer Tags!

Quote from: Bitcoinassasin on April 03, 2013, 03:16:46 AM

Ohhh BFL, the ripples you create humor me.
Ohhh, Betsofbitco.in, how you have suprised me.
Thought the answer to this was an obvious one.

Quote from: Bicknellski on April 03, 2013, 04:27:37 AM

I'd refuse to use that service considering the shaky and dubious evidence to support that it was even SHIPPED! It is not in the consumers hand what gives. Obviously there is some conflict of interest here. Sad to see people WELCH on a bet like this and goes to the ethics of Betsofbitco.in., Luke and BFL. Sad indeed.