Turns out bitbet.us may actually be in the wrong here! My Little Single is getting 29.4 Gh/s with a firmware update. In their defense, the bet could be argued to require +/- 10% as delivered (eg, disqualifying firmware updates), but if this performance issue had merely been my software, they'd have defrauded people... You are not a good person. I was very surprised to learn that you were Christian. Maybe you should do some soul searching and consider whether your actions here are congruent with your faith. |
|
|
|
BTW, I am not blaming Luke, he is just a too naive person to understand that he actually participated in a scam.
Judging by his attitude displayed thus far in this thread I would say there's a lot more than simple naivety going on there. |
|
|
|
Last 3 trolls seem to be missing the fact that the bet deadline was at the end of April 1, not the start of it.
1) do you really think these angry users are all trolls? I think they're sore losers who shouldn't be betting if they can't take responsibility for making sure the bet terms satisfy them. They should be glad it was declared a draw rather than a win for the pre-April side. The bet terms were fine. You and Josh provided misinformation causing the site to grade the bet wrong. You willfully posted deceptive pictures implying that you had recieved a shipment when in fact the pictured were taken at BFL. And Josh falsely reported "shipping" on twitter, and later admitted what you both had done. You defrauded the public. Please refute that claim. Any sort of logical reasoning why that is not a true statement would be great. |
|
|
|
|
Also:
Am I naive to think that something will be done here? Many people here tend towards conspiratorial thinking, whereas I tend to think that's generally a lot less likely. But is it possible that due to Luke's contributions as a developer and Josh working for BFL, that this will simply be ignored?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it Theymos who single handedly decides who gets the tag? I'd like to hear his thoughts on what Luke and Josh did.
At this point what happened is clear, and is not in dispute as far as I know. I welcome anyone who has any new information or differing stories.
Is there anyone who thinks what they did isn't fraudulent, and deserving of the tag?
|
|
|
|
I for one definitely don't understand why someone like Luke Jr who has personally invested so much in the bitcoin community would risk what he has built over the years. Especially considering he has claimed he was not involved in the bet, meaning he wouldn't not have anything to gain by doing this. Only everything to lose, so that is puzzling to say the least.
You're glossing over the part where he's an idiot. Sure, an idiot that happened to mull into something great early on. This does not make his mulling "invested a lot". It just makes it some lucky happenstance quickly squandered. Which takes us right back to the above. He didn't invest anything. He's just an idiot. Do you believe him to be stupid enough that he may of thought what he was doing was not fraudulent? That his intent was not to deceive and misrepresent reality while a total of over ~500 BTC was at stake? I'm genuinely interested what you and others think his intentions were and how it should be handled. He may of thought that what they were doing was just highly unethical, but not out right fraud? Luke, do you just not care, or did Josh or someone else mislead you in explaining the situation and what was at stake? |
|
|
|
So here's a wacky theory. Luke is obviously borderline sociopath, but perhaps we should be looking at coinjedi/BoB a little more closely. When this bet was made, the BTC price was way lower (I haven't checked exactly how low). It's feasible that the site cashed out those BTC at the time for whatever reason, and the time has now come to settle with the winners. Oh dear, the price has quadrupled (or whatever) and it now costs way too much to buy back the required coins. Call it a draw, problem solved  Just throwing it out there. That's a pretty serious accusation, and one that's probably pretty much impossible to prove either way. Honestly, I'm starting to think coinjedi just made a really bad mistake, but with no ill intent. It's a lot of money, and ideally the winners should be paid what they should have won. But it's pretty easy to see who caused this whole situation. I'd be surprised if coinjedi wasn't angry at Luke and Josh for causing him to undermine the integrity of his site, as well as costing him his comission. |
|
|
|
|
I think the next big question which I'd like to see addressed is how is it possible that the stunt that Luke Jr. and Josh pulled is not considered an attempt to defraud bettors? It is quite obvious that what they did was premeditated and intended to deceive. And they succeeded in altering the outcome of the bet, costing those who would have won a large amount. The evidence is already out there, and I don't think they deny what they did.
Is it just a matter of someone making an accusation thread? What are the arguments against their actions being consistent with being labeled a 'scammer'?
I for one definitely don't understand why someone like Luke Jr who has personally invested so much in the bitcoin community would risk what he has built over the years. Especially considering he has claimed he was not involved in the bet, meaning he wouldn't not have anything to gain by doing this. Only everything to lose, so that is puzzling to say the least.
I would honestly love to hear a well reasoned argument why the 'claiming to ship, but not actually shipping', and the subsequent financial damage to both the bettors and BoB(despite their failure here, they lost both their commision and reputation) could not be considered an act worthy of a scammer title.
|
|
|
|
They could also pay the bettors who actually won. They can do this without trying to extract money from the losers. The money would have to come out of BoB's own money, but that's what happens when you make a mistake that causes a shortfall - unless they're insured or this sort of thing.
Yes, that would be the moral thing to do. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps we should start a kickstarteresque fund for him to agree to never do another public bitcoin related talk or interview. He's damaged the image of Bitcoin many times before, and he will just continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
With regard to being useful for daily hand-to-hand transactions, Berkshire Hathaway shares, 500-foot (150-meter) yachts, and financial district office towers are not are inconvenient mediums of exchange, and yet markets in them exist.
Yes, but those are always negotiated for in cash. I doubt anyone has traded their yacht for a few shares of BRK.A. I assume most people wish Bitcoin to supercede the use of cash in the world economy. |
|
|
|
coinjedi, would you mind answering this question please:
Is the decision to grade the bet a draw final? Or do you acknowledge the potential to change the decision upon further reflection or if new information related the to bet were to surface?
As of i know they already refunded people that took part in the bet.... (and did not take a wage out of it) Ah, yes. That's right. They've already refunded the bettors. So I guess at this point the only thing they can do as a company is admit that they chose the wrong outcome. |
|
|
|
|
I predict the market will determine high fees for timely transfers eventually, and subsequently limit Bitcoins growth potential.
The way the protocol functions seems to lead toward this eventuality. It's somewhat ironic that the free market determination of transfer fees will likely constrain Bitcoin's function as an everyday use, free market currency. This doesn't make it any less amazing, but it is something to consider.
One solution could be for payment processing companies to provide their service for less than individuals would pay in fees, Bitcoins answer to Visa I guess. This of course would likely require trust and centralization. I think I remember someone mentioning that Satoshi was quoted as saying that Bitcoin was not designed and never intended to function as a point of sale solution. So I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. But clearly many people are hoping Bitcoin extends it's use to replace all of the current payment processing establishment. So it will be interesting to see what solutions people come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
coinjedi, would you mind answering this question please:
Is the decision to grade the bet a draw final? Or do you acknowledge the potential to change the decision upon further reflection or if new information related the to bet were to surface?
|
|
|
|
|
And I have no financial involvement in anything related to this at all.
It's just infuriating to read what has happened here and see that nothing is going to be done. If people can get away with doing things like this and suffer no consequences nothing is ever going to change.
|
|
|
|
Josh and Luke attempted to scam the bet. How the stunt they pulled could be classified as anything but a scam is beyond me. As for Bets of Bitcoin: The first line of the bet stated: "This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886 " Is the pictured device one of those 3 products?(aside from the fact that nothing was shipped) No. Therefore it is irrelevant whether you think the subsequent two conditions were met or not. Only other possible explanation is for Bets of Bitcoin to publicly state that they believe that the pictured device is one of the 3 items that qualify for the bet. PS I mean the picture was taken at BFL, ffs this is such an obvious slam dunk scammer tag for at least one person that if it doesn't get issued here it should probably be retired. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
