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 The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
"
device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate" -
Condition MetToo much ambiguity, information credibility, and a problem meeting part of the conditions leads me to believe the outcome of the bet is:
True -- BFL has
not shipped before April 1st, 2013
- Key phase, before you can evaluate this analysis, you have to agree with the posters assumption that the title is not important in determining the bet. This title reads very specifically so either you the title should matter or not. It does set a precedent. I think misleading titles should be a factor if people think BFL did met the outcome requirement to affirm the bet.