Quote from: Korbman on April 02, 2013, 06:07:51 PM

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?

You are not wrong, and I understand what you're saying..but ..

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

Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording?

No. In contracts or other formal agreements the content takes precedence over the intent. One example I usually think about when it comes to something like this is Taxes. The government's intent is for you to pay your share and they write this massive tax code to cover just about everything they can think of. But thanks to their wording, there are loopholes that allow for people to keep their money if they put it in the right places.

Something well written thoroughly transfers intent into technical wording, which the author of this bet clearly did not do properly. As a result, we have to debate about something that should be pretty straightforward Cheesy

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

Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that?

I would imagine so. But I also imagine there are people who looked through the details of the bet and agreed to it based on that instead. Anyway, it should all be taken into context..title and content.

EDIT: I never bet on this, so I have nothing to gain or lose here.

I see what your saying but your example is of a flawed system (taxes). Using that to back up a bet that clearly is using technical language to misinform the intent, isn't that in it self an admission that I am correct? You can't have it both ways if you want to debate my comments. I believe most people would actually side that intent matter (good faith) and technical details are usually used to take advantage over another person or group.

I would hope you are on the side of intent when it can be measure and not details. I operate on intent first and then make sure that matches my legal language of contracts I offer for signature.