Quote from: Phinnaeus Gage on May 06, 2013, 04:53:34 PM

EDIT: I mistakenly thought that both these bets(?) were of the same nature, which is not the case.

EDIT AGAIN: This is the post I meant to include and not the bet with runeks.

Quote from: Inaba on October 19, 2012, 09:04:56 PM

Since Tom is refusing to actually make the bet he himself proposed between us, I am offering up a guarantee of 1000 BTC to charity (I will take suggestions on which charity to donate this to) if BFL does not meet it's power claims within 10% - meaning if BFL's power consumption is more than 66w for a Single SC, we lose the "bet."

Now, I ask if Tom is willing to step up and back the winning side. He is 100% confident that we will not meet our power claims (which is the genesis of the failed bet), and as such I ask that he pony up 1000 BTC to the same charity if we do make our power claims.

So there it is: Tom is confident that we won't make our power claims, I am confident that we will. I am willing to put up 1000 BTC to show my confidence in BFL products. Is Tom confident enough to do the same or is he just blowing hot air?

Who's doing the lawsuit
Here is the proof that Josh owes 1000 BTC:

Quote

Re: BFL ASIC is bogus

January 14, 2013, 06:06:52 PM #220
Quote from: Inaba on September 24, 2012, 03:03:04 PM

Quote
At 500:1 odds I, runeks, bet 2 BTC that the first line of ASIC-chips shipped by Butterfly Labs (ie. not any later series/revision) in their 'SC' line of products will have an efficiency of less than 350 Mhash/Joule. This figure pertains only to the chip itself, so any inefficiency in the power supply will allow for a higher power usage of the device in which the chip resides. So, power supply inefficiencies are excluded, but other components on the board that are required for the device to work will be included in the power efficiency measurement, as the power efficiency figure is irrelevant if the device - under ideal conditions - can't operate at that efficiency anyway.

At the odds of 500:1 that are in effect for this bet I will win 1000 BTC if I am correct (power efficiency is less 350 Mhash/Joule), and lose 2 BTC if I am incorrect (power efficiency is greater than or equal to 350 Mhash/Joule).

Power efficiency shall be measured over a 24 hour period.

Inaba, if you agree then quote this post and say you agree, or suggest a revision of the terms if you think I'm missing something or being unfair.

I agree with this bet.

I'm writing here to publicly restate my commitment to this bet. Since it's been a while, I think it seems like a good idea for both parties to restate their commitment to the wager publicly. I have invited Inaba to do the same via PM.

Quote

Re: BFL ASIC is bogus

January 14, 2013, 06:18:50 PM
#221
Sure, I re-affirm it. Our devices would literally melt if they came in at 114w or more.

Thanks for reminding me... I think I have another bet for a more substantial amount with someone but bugger all if I remember who. I guess I will have to dig back in my posts.

Proof that BFL owes 1000 BFL: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/content/123-bfl-offers-1000-btc-charity-if-they-miss-their-power-targets.html

Quote

BFL offers 1000 BTC to charity if we miss our power targets!

Published on 10-19-2012 06:33 PM 66 Comments

We are so confident in our power consumption that we are offering up 1000 BTC to charity if we miss our power consumption targets by more than 10%. We are offering our devices at 1 watt consumed per gigahash. If our power targets end up consuming more than 1.1w of power per gigahash, we will donate 1000 BTC to charity! How is that for confidence in our power usage?

With the recent focus on power consumption, we want to reiterate that we stand behind our customers and our products. We have designed our mining equipment to be the smallest, fastest, most aesthetically pleasing and most power efficient mining device available on the planet. We guarantee that in the form of 1000 BTC! When you buy a BFL product, you know you're getting the absolute best mining device available, period.

Unless you are an idiot, the above clearly shows that the first case is a bet between runeks and Josh, whereas the later case is somebody speaking in the capacity of BFL assuring their customer base--current and future--that they'll produce products within a certain tolerance, offering up a 1000 BTC donation to some charity as a guarantee.

Josh reaffirms his bet, whereas BFL didn't have to, for they're on record on their official website that a 1000 BTC guarantee is place.

It's safe to assume that at least one person ordered a BFL product based off this official statement on BFL's website. It's also safe to assume that at least two people purchased BFL products due to Josh's bet because of the trust factor alone.

I'm on record in stating that I will donate $200 USD (doesn't matter if in $ or BTC) to a charity of Josh's or BFL's choice (doesn't matter which or to whom) once they show proof of delivery.

Instead of trying to dispute that such deliveries have yet to take place, I will simply concede that they have shipped. Ergo, I OWE $200 to some yet unnamed charity of which I will honor...

...As soon as both their 1000 BTC donations are satisfied.

~Bruno K~