Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 12, 2013, 02:17:39 AM

Quote from: GoodStuff on April 12, 2013, 01:05:10 AM

Quote from: Vagnavs on April 12, 2013, 12:55:21 AM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on April 11, 2013, 11:50:01 PM

Quote from: niner on April 06, 2013, 02:03:42 AM

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/

Turns out bitbet.us may actually be in the wrong here! My Little Single is getting 29.4 Gh/s with a firmware update.
In their defense, the bet could be argued to require +/- 10% as delivered (eg, disqualifying firmware updates), but if this performance issue had merely been my software, they'd have defrauded people...

you sure say some stupid things. You may have a unit, but the bet was for BFL to ship out units to customers. Which they failed to do..

This. The bet says "will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers", NOT "a customer" thus implying plurality. Having one unit shipped to one customer does not logically satisfy the conditions of the bet.

You're right. While it's just one character, it does make an important difference.
Delivery to one customer certainly isn't "customers" no matter how accurate the rest.
I take back what I said.

Now only if you could see your way to talking back what you have done and said about the other bet we'd all feel a bit better wouldn't we? Fucking tard.