Quote from: smoothie on June 23, 2014, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 23, 2014, 12:18:28 PM

Quote from: Kelticfox on June 23, 2014, 11:40:25 AM

Quote from: DrG on June 23, 2014, 08:21:25 AM

What I want to know is what happened at BFL between 3/31/13 and 6/30/13. It took over 3 months for BFL to go from "shipping" Luke's Single to shipping my Single, and my Single was one of the first 100 ordered. During that 3 month delay I lost the potential return of my 209BTC outlay. I want to know if BFL was actively mining at extended length with first Singles. Ultimately I was only able to mine a little over 17BTC with something I spent 209BTC. There's not making positive ROI and then there's having a company steal your money outright by using your hardware while blatantly telling lies "oh we can't get it to work". Angry

There have already been court documents to the Attorney General in which BFL openly admit to using customer devices on the EMC pool (which is owned by BFL and purchased from Josh in 2012).

So your question of:

Quote

I want to know if BFL was actively mining at extended length with first Singles.

is confirmed as yes, in these documents in which it states:

Quote

Butterfly Labs earns mining income from their burn testing of machines as well as service fees charged to Eclipse customers

in part 4 (page 3)

"Burn testing" does not imply "actively mining at extended length" IMO.
It implies a brief period of testing to ensure the device works and doesn't fail within a few hours.

"Burn testing" should have been done on testnet. It should have produced the same results from a hardware standpoint.

remember when they promised to do burn testing on testnet?

haha, as if it will ever happen.