Quote from: dooglus on May 14, 2013, 06:52:14 AM

1) will deliver ASIC Bitcoin mining devices to their customers

To all of their customers? To at least one of their customers?

To a significant fraction thereof. This means that one person claiming to have received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet (such as the Luke-jr fraud has done with the betsofbitco.in scam "bet"). This also means that one person claiming to have not received his units is not enough to fraudulently settle the bet the other way.

Ideally this could be further clarified. Practically, it cannot be further clarified. This is the unfortunate limitation of Bitcoin per se (more of the same here). We will have (absolutely all of us, whether we want to or not, whether we think it's fair or not, whether anything else) to learn to live with it.

Quote from: dooglus on May 14, 2013, 06:52:14 AM

2) Devices must be in scope

All of them. This should not logically be a problem, seeing how the devices are presumed to be mass produced rather than carved by hand somewhere. I agree that for the time it took so far they might as well been hand carved, but this unfortunately is simply not a possibility that was considered or even reasonable at the time the bet was made. Consequently, it's baked in.

Quote from: dooglus on May 14, 2013, 06:52:14 AM

3) of at least +-10%

"at least plus or minus 10%"? What does that mean? If the advertised performance was 100 (whatevers), then it has to be "at least 90 or 110"? Isn't that the same as just "at least 90"?

This was already explained multiple other places, but:

A. It is there because this is the retarded manner in which BFL (the producer itself!) phrased their own offering. In the choice between A.1. "phrase the bet differently from the producer, and be accused of loading the bet" and A.2. "phrase the bet exactly the same as the producer, and then face the hordes holding you to higher standards than the producer seeing how everyone knows BFL is a scam and everyone knows MP upholds his obligations to the word and letter" A.2. prevailed. This is because MP personally and his venture in this case are shining beacons of ideal perfection, as compared to everything else in Bitcoin, such as for instance (in this case) BFL.

B. It is interpreted in favor of BFL, which is to say that hash of no less than 90% and power consumption of no more than 110% of the spec. It won't decide against delivery if the hashing delivered is MORE than promised, or if the power usage is LESS than promised. It will decide against delivery if either hashing delivered is more than 10% under advertised values, or if power consumption is more than 10% over advertised values. The "or"s in the foregoing are plain (as opposed to exclusive), and I am getting slightly worried at noticing I feel compelled to specify that.

Quote from: dooglus on May 14, 2013, 06:52:14 AM

4) of advertised

Advertised where? And when? Got a link? Or a copy/paste? I've no idea where to find it

Kindly see post #10 in this thread.

Quote from: dooglus on May 14, 2013, 06:52:14 AM

5) performance

Is that hashes per second or hashes per Joule?

It is hashes per item delivered AND power consumption per item delivered. Exactly as advertised.

To remind everyone: This bet followed the statements that BFL itself made, back when it was lying to all of you. You don't like the lies you've swallowed, talk to the cook.