859700+ entries in 0.593s
Luke-Jr: fractal: also, if you made a bet
thinking
the conclusion was already final, I have no sympathy for your attempted ripoff
fractal: it failed
to meet
that spec
fractal: Luke-Jr:
The bet also required
that
the Gh be in a single UNIT
kakobrekla: again
the unit by definition in
the bet can be a bag of cpus, a box of bananas or a handfull of shit if it does 400gh under
the wattage
Luke-Jr: which is all
the bet required
Luke-Jr: it's not as advertised, but it does meet
the advertised performance.
Luke-Jr: the unit in
this case is 2 boards
fractal: Since
they can't provide 400Gh in 1 unit, as advertised,
the bet is a no.
Luke-Jr: ok, you're right it doesn't explicitly define unit as
the 2 boards, but neither does it deny it
fractal: "I will ship your ordered hashrate regardless (ie. more hardware free of charge) until we fix
this issue and can provide 400GH in one unit." Or, "We can't provide 400Gh in 1 unit, so we are doing X instead"
kakobrekla: punin is not
the same person as bitfury fyi
Luke-Jr: it says
the boards are falling short, and refers
to
the new 400 Gh
total as a single unit
fractal: it proves
that
they can't do 400Gh in 1 unit
Luke-Jr: fractal:
this does not say what you claim
fractal: Notice how
the manufacturer specifically states
that
they can't do 400Gh in 1 UNIT
fractal: Luke-Jr: I wasn't prepared
to lose. I bet after
the manufacturer admitted
that
the 400Gh unit would not perform as advertised.
fractal: dexX7: no,
that would meet performance specs.
dexX7: fractal: i don't ask about
the definition of a unit, but want
to point out
that 408.78 gh/s is not 400 gh/s, which wouldn't be conform with
their advertisement which stated "400 gh/s", right?
benkay_: Luke-Jr:
this is
the delusion.
benkay_: Luke-Jr: he doesn't
think he wasn't prepared
to lose
Luke-Jr: fractal: why did you bet at all if you weren't prepared
to possibly lose?
Luke-Jr: fractal: number of boards was not a clause of
the bet
fractal: Luke-Jr: Why? All clauses of a bet must be
true for
the bet
to be valid.
They weren't.
dexX7: fractal: would a miner with 408.78 gh/s be conform with
the advertisement of "400 gh/s"?
Luke-Jr: fractal: at best you can argue it should have been a draw, but it's clearly within
the judge's authority
to declare it Yes here
fractal: Luke-Jr:
They delivered 2 units. not 1 unit
fractal: Luke-Jr:
to deliver 400Gh,
they need
to add another M-board and R-pi, which are not interconnected like an additional H-card would be. it is
therefore 2 units
Luke-Jr: fractal: and
they delivered a different (but better) unit
than
that. but
the unit
they delivered met
the bet definition
Luke-Jr: admitting its use is valid for
that
jurov: fractal: YES is better answer
than NO or UNDECIDED - you agree or not?
Luke-Jr: also, you just used "unit" (first instance)
to refer
to
the entire
thing
Luke-Jr: fractal: except for
the defined
terms (meets performance),
the bet left "unit" up
to
the company
to define
jurov: if it fit into power
then YES is better answer
than NO or DRAW
fractal: Luke-Jr:
The unit delivered didn't have an extra H-card... it was a seperate unit completely
fractal: Luke-Jr: If
the bet said
that an Avalon Batch 2 Unit must do 60Gh, and you got 2
that did 50Gh each, does
that make
the bet a YES?
The actual unit as advertised didn't do 60Gh
benkay_: fractal: but, am more
than happy
to let you write
the
terms.
benkay_: fractal: because i don't
trust you.
Luke-Jr: the unit was advertised
to have 16 H-cards, but
the unit as delivered had a bonus H-card. it's still a unit.
benkay_: fractal: second condition:
this bet will clear on bitbet
fractal: Luke-Jr: What
they delivered doesn't change
the fact
that
the UNIT as advertised (1M-board, 16H-cards, 1R-Pi) doesn't do 400Gh....
thats what
the bet is about...
Luke-Jr: fractal:
they delivered MORE
than
that as
the unit.
that's just getting better specs.
fractal: benkay_: absolutely i'll
take
that bet. I'll have
to word it better
tho
fractal: Luke-Jr: Unit as advertised is specifically 1M-board, 16H-cards, 1R-pi.
this UNIT does not do 400Gh
benkay_: fractal: i'm going
to bet 1 btc you can't ship a betting site
that beats bitbet's committed coins for a rolling
three month period
fractal: Luke-Jr: It's like saying
that
the KnC Jupiter miner must be 400GH/sec.... and
then its 350Gh.... but
the company ships 2 of
them.... doesn't make up for
the fact
that
the actual unit was not 400gh
dexX7: following
this approach a "unit" consising of a hasher with 400 w power consumption, but 408.3 gh/s would result in "no",
too?
fractal: Luke-Jr: however,
the bet language states
that
the 400Gh UNIT must perform as advertised, and it only does 365Gh.
Luke-Jr: "meet" usually includes "better
than"
Luke-Jr: fractal: ok, so? customers who ordered it got BETTER
than
that..
dexX7: fractal, i
think you do have a point.
though resulting
the bet in "no" would have been far worse imho.
thus instead of arguing and calling it fraud, i suggest you should put your effort into creating guidelines or similar
to prevent fuzzy situations like
this in
the future.
fractal: Luke-Jr:
thats ok... but
the hardware didn't perform as advertised, so
the bet would be a NO.
Luke-Jr: fractal: I have
to agree with
the bet conclusion in
this case, sorry.
fractal: pankkake: i am here specifically for you. infact i will change nicks
tomorrow and complain about
the bet every day i see you in here for years
to come. congratulations.
fractal: benkay_:
the bet definition is irrelevant unless all conditions/clauses are met
fractal: benkay_: of course it does. all clauses in
the bet must be valid for it
to be YES
pankkake: I
thought after
the bet he would finally shut up/grow up
benkay_: and will be what sticks in
this case as well.
fractal: No. My goal is
to spread word on
the forums about
the bitbet fraud, and
then launch an exact clone of bitbet.us with 0% fees. I will
then short BBet on MPEX and profit as it dwindles
to zero.
benkay_: and
the definition is
typically what sticks
benkay_: it's pretty common for a clause in english
to be followed by a definition
benkay_: fractal: what's funny
to me is
that you're
the only person arguing
the "as advertised" clause supersedes
the bet definition.
kakobrekla: change your eyeballs or even better,
the whole head.
fractal: what's blackmail? is it blackmail
to
tell pirateat40 he should repay loans?
benkay_: eventually you'll
tire of it, and
then just be another human who whined about being scammed on a loosey-goosey bet definition.
benkay_: fractal:
that's basically blackmail, and is image-wise indistinguishable from
the hit you'll
take from being a sore loser
fractal: benkay_: my job is
to warn others
to avoid
the site so
they dont get robbed/scammed/defrauded... and i will continue
to do
this daily , for years
to come. bitbet is welcome
to do
the right
thing and pay out no bets and
the noise will go away
benkay_: fractal: what's
the sum
total you lost? some
thousands of dollars? you're choosing
to get angry instead of getting smart.
fractal: benkay_: its not a matter of being a sore loser -- if i lost id be happy
to congratulate
the winner and move on. --- its a matter of being robbed / scammed/ defrauded
benkay_: then you'd quantify something
that
the rest of us intuit, which is
that it's a negligible percentage.
benkay_: fractal: maybe a useful
thing would be
to collect statistics on bitbet disputes
benkay_: and don't waste
time fighting an elephant.
MCM-Mike: can someone explain me why "CBTC" on Havelock is offering different price/unit - on "overview"
they want 3MIO * 0.00018 and on
the public offering site each share is valued with 0.0002. Is
this some kind of rounding happening?
fractal: if it didn't say 'as advertised'
thats a different story
fractal: by all logical definitions
the bet is a no because it contains
the word 'advertised' when reffering
to
the unit
fractal: [00:26] <fractal> jurov:
thats not what
the bet says -- it says as advertised [00:26] <fractal> jurov: AS ADVERTISED>. everybody seems
to miss
the AS ADVERTISED part [00:26] <fractal> 1 M-board, 16H-card, 1 R-pi.
thats 1 unit. if
that hardware doesn't do 400Gh,
the bet is a no
jurov: 3. You sue you didn't got
the "unit"
dexX7: fractal: how do you monetize
this?
fractal: and, i've already started coding a bitbet clone with 0% fees, and a
transparent bet deciding process
fractal: it will be like a
thorn in
the side of all
fractal: The forums will never hear
the end of it
fractal: and if
they refund, I'll be happy
to write a positive article about
them making up for
their mistakes
gesell: anyone got ideas on why gox is finally correcting and removing
the huge gap in price between it and other exchanges? major arbitrage players finally got
their $20m fiat moving in other places
to bring btc into gox
to sell?
fractal: I will spent
the next 5 years posting and re posting
this until Bitbet refunds all 'no' bets from
their own pocket
fractal: just
to be clear --
there was a SPECIFIC definition of what a unit was on
the bitfury website
jurov: oh my, don't discuss it for 3rd
time
dexX7: well, so
the only problem is based on
the definition of
the
term "unit"
benkay_: more chips
than were expected
though i
think was complaint
dexX7: they did meet
the power specifications, i.e. < 1 w / gh/s?
ozbot: BitBet incorrectly declares yes
to a no bet. Stay Away from BitBet!
jorash: Luke-Jr is sketpical of our claim
that we can simulate QC, but in
teh event we do, he is willing
to assist from a dev persective.