
Digging for answers: The “strong smell” of fraud from one Bitcoin miner maker - pr0zac
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/digging-for-answers-the-strong-smell-of-fraud-from-one-bitcoin-miner-maker/
======
IvyMike
The eternal question I always have is: if you make machines that print money,
why would you sell them?

There are several plausible answers, but it's still interesting to think
about.

(Although in this case, the answer may be "they _don 't_ make machines that
print money and they sell them anyway")

~~~
wmf
The eternal answers from every mining thread: if you need crowdfunding to pay
for your NRE or if you would prefer to have USD instead of BTC or if you would
prefer to have a certain amount of money now rather than an uncertain amount
later, etc.

------
jerf
Before anyone knee-jerks the "you asked for anarchy" response, bear in mind
that A: libertarians generally are OK with contract enforcement and B: the
real world legal system is apparently already quite involved, and I doubt
anyone's complaining.

(Libertarianism isn't anarchy. If it were, we wouldn't need a separate word.)

~~~
shasta
> (Libertarianism isn't anarchy. If it were, we wouldn't need a separate
> word.)

Not that your conclusion is wrong, but if that argument worked we wouldn't
need the word "synonym."

~~~
jerf
In English, synonyms are rarely _equivalent_. I can not come up with an
example of two common-English words (i.e., not from a jargon set) that really
are _exactly_ the same, in all implications, off the top of my head. Some may
exist, but in general if such a pair exists normal language processes will
push the two apart in meaning anyhow.

------
frade33
Where ever greed is involved, it must be administrated. Otherwise it would be
as chaotic as sadly things are shaping up in the bitcoin world.

I will try to search for ARS article on butterfly, which went into depth about
mining, actually it was my first time, I had completely known what is bitcoin
mining. Now When I read 'butterfly' I was in a complete shock and awe.....

here it is. [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/weve-got-a-
butterfly-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/weve-got-a-butterfly-
labs-bitcoin-miner-and-its-pretty-darn-fast/)

------
dobbsbob
If you want an excellent example how to not run a company, go through this
guy's post history

[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276848.msg4602313#ms...](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=276848.msg4602313#msg4602313)

'Inaba' is the COO of Butterfly Labs. He also runs his own mining pool (prob
with customer miners)

------
DanBC
So what's the method of the scam? Take money from people to build the
machines; run the machines to earn bitcoin; use that bitcoin to repay anyone
who complains and hope the bitcoin is profitable?

Could people sue for the lost opportunity of bit oin they could have earned if
they had the machines?

------
darkarmani
How poorly run do you have to be to not make money simply selling the hardware
and harvesting bitcoins during the burn in period? It's no different than
using the float in other ways. Do it in a way that customers are still happy
and everyone wins.

------
bigdubs
Isn't the object of business generally to do as much nefarious stuff as you
can get away with?

With bitcoin I think the 'moral' bar is a bit lower because this is new
territory.

note: I do not believe this (that business moral judgements are just what they
can get away with), but it seems to be a commonly held belief.

note #2: to people the downvoted this, if it wasn't a thought provoking or at
least intelligent comment please elaborate why.

~~~
bmelton
As someone who downvoted you, and then saw the request for explanation, here's
mine:

I downvoted you because rhetoric, however commonly held, isn't worth the
discussion space, in my opinion.

Further, I disagree with the implication that all capitalist endeavors would
just be highway robbers, if not for those pesky laws. Even those who suggest
that Wal-Mart is definitively evil for paying minimum wage doesn't tend to
hold the belief that all economic exchange is similarly evil, nor are all
companies nefariously motivated.

Yes, successful business owners like to maximize value, but for every person
trying to sneak in a hidden surcharge, or lobby Congress for favors, there's
another person who runs the minimum amount of ads on his website because he
doesn't want it to feel dirty, or who is contributing to open source, because
he likes giving back.

~~~
bigdubs
Thanks for answering.

I think this notion is specifically relevant to BFL.

The point is that in the absence of a Kohlberg "Conventional" and beyond sense
of morality what we are left with is what companies (actors, individuals) can
do, and what they can't do.

I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies will
do what they can to maximize profit.

It's as simple as that. As long as we let companies like BFL operate without
punishment, they will test the limits of what they can do.

Does it make it right? Of course not.

~~~
bmelton
> I don't think that companies are inherently bad, it's just that companies
> will do what they can to maximize profit.

SOME companies will. What percentage, I honestly don't know, but I honestly
suspect that it's a much smaller percentage than people tend to believe.

Aside from that, I'm not arguing with you _per se_, but you asked for an
explanation, so I gave one. FWIW, I tend to downvote most pithy rhetoric that
doesn't contribute to the conversation, even from pg himself.

~~~
bigdubs
Again, thanks for the color.

I hate to think that _anyone_ thinks this is 'pithy' (or overly concise to be
clear) rhetoric though. It's a simple observation, but I feel it's one that
people seem to miss quite often when dissecting events of moral ambiguity
concerning companies.

The point is this; we _have_ to get stronger at holding companies accountable
for things we feel are suspect. That's all. Otherwise the playing field is
more open to nonsense like BFL pulled.

