|
Title: . Post by: minerjones on June 02, 2016, 12:58:36 PM .
Title: Re: . Post by: cryptoheadd on June 02, 2016, 01:09:54 PM 0.01
Title: Re: . Post by: MRBONG411 on June 02, 2016, 05:49:39 PM 0.02BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: Jog4444 on June 02, 2016, 08:38:36 PM 0.03BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: cryptoheadd on June 02, 2016, 08:41:06 PM 0.05BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: Jog4444 on June 02, 2016, 08:47:24 PM 0.06BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: cryptoheadd on June 02, 2016, 08:49:37 PM 0.08
Title: Re: . Post by: Fortify on June 02, 2016, 09:38:16 PM 0.09
Title: Re: . Post by: cryptoheadd on June 02, 2016, 09:45:34 PM 0.1BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: DebitMe on June 03, 2016, 03:08:42 AM .11
Title: Re: . Post by: IBGigglin on June 03, 2016, 04:11:45 AM .12BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: Fortify on June 03, 2016, 07:43:34 PM .13
Title: Re: . Post by: DebitMe on June 07, 2016, 03:41:32 PM .14
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 06:25:08 PM I'll bid .15 BTC. ;)
Regards, Me Title: Re: . Post by: monkeynuts on June 07, 2016, 06:30:55 PM 0.16
Title: Re: . Post by: Fortify on June 07, 2016, 06:44:31 PM 0.17
Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 06:48:35 PM 0.18 BTC
Title: Re: . Post by: Fortify on June 07, 2016, 06:59:49 PM 0.19
Title: Re: . Post by: DebitMe on June 07, 2016, 07:00:47 PM .25
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 07:08:54 PM .26
Me Title: Re: . Post by: DebitMe on June 07, 2016, 07:09:37 PM .35
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 07:11:41 PM Take it. :-\
Me Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 07:14:20 PM 0.36
Title: Re: . Post by: DebitMe on June 07, 2016, 07:20:02 PM .4
Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 07:23:38 PM 0.41
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 07:36:55 PM .42
Me Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 07:38:36 PM 0.5
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 07:49:25 PM .51
Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 07:53:01 PM 0.52
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 08:00:53 PM .53
Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 08:13:51 PM 0.541
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 08:14:16 PM .55
Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 08:29:58 PM Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 08:31:13 PM I'm lost... Me Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 08:32:22 PM I'm lost... Me Oh, I see what you did. I didn't think the extra .001 BTC counted, since the increments were .01 BTC. Me Title: Re: . Post by: cryptoheadd on June 07, 2016, 08:33:52 PM I see what you did there. ;D Title: Re: . Post by: digicoinuser on June 07, 2016, 08:41:17 PM I'm lost... Me Oh, I see what you did. I didn't think the extra .001 BTC counted, since the increments were .01 BTC. Me Dang, that was a good tactic by doge to make the minimum acceptable bid after his 0.551BTC. It's really up to the person running the auction but I believe doge won based on bid invalidation. ;) Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 08:47:35 PM I'm lost... Me Oh, I see what you did. I didn't think the extra .001 BTC counted, since the increments were .01 BTC. Me Sorry for this! Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 09:16:45 PM Dang, that was a good tactic by doge to make the minimum acceptable bid after his 0.551BTC. It's really up to the person running the auction but I believe doge won based on bid invalidation. ;) Yeah, I'm on the fence about it. The OP states "bid increment," not "minimum bid increment." To me, that means the bids must be in increments of .01 BTC (in other words, all bids must be divisible by .01 BTC), and a bid of .541 BTC doesn't qualify. (And if that's the case, then that means the previous valid bid of .54 BTC may have won the auction.) Regardless, the last thing I want is bad blood. This is a fun and friendly auction, after all. Congratulations, dogevisitor. :) Me Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 09:36:56 PM Dang, that was a good tactic by doge to make the minimum acceptable bid after his 0.551BTC. It's really up to the person running the auction but I believe doge won based on bid invalidation. ;) Yeah, I'm on the fence about it. The OP states "bid increment," not "minimum bid increment." To me, that means the bids must be in increments of .01 BTC (in other words, all bids must be divisible by .01 BTC), and a bid of .541 BTC doesn't qualify. (And if that's the case, then that means the previous valid bid of .54 BTC may have won the auction.) Regardless, the last thing I want is bad blood. This is a fun and friendly auction, after all. Congratulations, dogevisitor. :) Me We have to wait minerjones to declare the winning bid. If we take "bid increment" as is, then a bid with a difference of 0.02, from previus bid, would be invalid too. In that case lots of bids would be invalid here. If I'm the winner and if I ever think on selling this set you will be the first one I will ask and the price will be my winning bid. ;) Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 07, 2016, 09:38:48 PM It was a fun auction!
Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 07, 2016, 09:43:09 PM If I'm the winner and if I ever think on selling this set you will be the first one I will ask and the price will be my winning bid. ;) It's gestures like the one above that make me happy to be part of such a great forum. You're a good one, dogevisitor. :) Regards, Chris Title: Re: . Post by: Fortify on June 08, 2016, 07:22:20 AM It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction :P
Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 08, 2016, 07:25:49 AM It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction :P I don't see "multiples" in this auction, only increments, which is different. Title: Re: . Post by: dogevisitor on June 08, 2016, 07:28:28 AM It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction :P I don't see "multiples" in this auction, only increments, which is different. I don't want to argue regarding spelling or whatever... We are gents here and the OP it's always right ;) Title: Re: . Post by: Fortify on June 08, 2016, 07:30:02 AM It's up to minerjones of course, but BitcoinPenny should of won this auction really. Bid increments are multiples of 0.01 - the bid of 0.541 is the same as bidding 0.54. I only say this because I tried the same tactic in a different auction :P I don't see "multiples" in this auction, only increments, which is different. Well if you are working to the word of the rules, all bids that didn't increment by 0.01 are invalid - which is clearly not the intention in an auction. Bidding an unsupported increment would make your bid equally invalid. Title: Re: . Post by: chronicsky on June 08, 2016, 10:47:23 AM That was a good tactic indeed but it was kind of foul play
I wouldn't support it :) Rest upto MJ No hard feelings towards you @Dogevisitor It's just what i think is good since we are all good Bitcoiners and numismatics :) Title: Re: . Post by: BitcoinPenny on June 08, 2016, 02:00:22 PM It's a tough decision for minerjones, to be sure. I wouldn't want to be in his position. :) That said, with the permission of minerjones, I will officially withdraw my bid of .55 BTC. Dogevisitor can have the auction at .541 BTC. No worries, no hard feelings. I'll find another set down the road. Congratulations, DV! :)
Regards, Chris Title: Re: . Post by: DebitMe on June 09, 2016, 03:24:21 AM Congrats to the winner, I got working and preoccupied so my bidding forgot about unfortunately. Anyway, good auction. Need to get my hands on an orange one here soon.
|