Online wallets are for small amounts if anything at all, and certainly not for storage. Spending a few months (at a minimum) dedicating your reading to the central concepts of bitcoin, cryptography, and security including the tools therein would be a good idea, as even good suggestions won't bestow understanding upon you. If you want full control, you've go to know what you're working with, so make the commitment. |
|
|
|
This thread is so confusing. How can someone be a cunt and a faggot?
He's just a running dog of the chauvinist male pigs that's all. |
|
|
|
Feel free to let them now  What's with switching from "us" to "them"? Anyway the point is, no matter which pronouns you're using, they ought to have greater depth. Getting in the WoT is the way to achieve this. |
|
|
|
mike_c: Not only did you bring up an objection that has, as octopus said, already been thoroughly deconstructed multiple times
You fundamentally misunderstand what "deconstructed" means. Hint: it's not a synonym of "destroyed", it's a way to say "taken apart so as to better understand it". I can appreciate your adolescent desire to impress, with stolen philosophical vocabulary, with stolen bits of Latin in the wrong declensions and so on and so forth. You are however quite outside of your intellectual depth in this adventure, and a more modest attitude, better aligned with your actual abilities, accomplishments, and experience would probably work a lot better. Provided, of course, that your goal isn't to be our little special lolcow. |
|
|
|
how many times does it have to be said? it is the responsibility of the POS system to prevent this.
You don't get a say in allocating responsibilities here. Why do you have trouble with this simple notion? |
|
|
|
No need to stoop to MPOE's level.
And yes I agree a site reputation feature would be nice, there are some places that already do this but I'm not sure if there are any specifically for the bitcoin economy.
Yeah, a site reputation feature would be great. The problem with this derp is this: you bunch of fucktards can't attack MP's rep, in any conceivable way. If there's some sort of herp reputation site where reputable sites are maligned by idiots just like you, the only net result will be that actual scammers will benefit from the ensuing confusion, which will basically boil down to more fucktards just like you getting hurt. Except then it won't be because you're stupid directly, it'll just be because you were stupid a while back and got stuck. Which I suppose is how the US folk ended up with their current US government in the first place. So have at. You're massive bleeding cunt and I hope somebody robs your shit website for every coin you have.
If you think what's keeping MP's sites untouched by scummy fucks (just like you) is the fact that he's nice to them...heh. You're not stealing from MP because he doesn't let you, not because you wouldn't if you could. |
|
|
|
completely disingenuous. i reiterate, everyone over at bitbet.us can go get fucked.
That's fine, but it also shows you have not a fucking clue what disingenuous means. What you quote is a paragon of ingenuity. Give credit where credit's due, you might be taken seriously sometime. |
|
|
|
Why'd you edit your post to remove your mention that I didn't have the site operator in my list of scammers? Did the site operator ask you to? What is the site operator's bitcointalk username?
Read, fuckwit, read! |
|
|
|
I used to think MPOE-PR was rude but worth listening to...
I already had that username on ignore, so came to the not listening decision long ago. I had to unhide to see what this thread was about. I initially thought from the title that someone was at fault and wanted to be paid winnings from a bet they didn't enter in time. This is not the case, the money was sent to the site, delayed in confirmation and not entered into a bet, and then kept by the site operator. Stolen. The "terms" that allege that the owner can do this are unconscionable, and no court of law would find on the side of the site owner. Scammer tags deserved. We need not just a user reputation, but a site reputation feature. It's pretty amazing looking at old forum posts and old correspondence how just about everyone has turned 'scammer' and run. Keeping for later, you never know. |
|
|
|
|
If the retard hiding behind "snackman" only spent in thinking and learning a tenth of the time he spends making a total fool of himself...or at least understanding what he was doing afore he did it....
|
|
|
|
I used to think MPOE-PR was rude but worth listening to nevertheless, now I think he/she/it is just nasty, unscrupulous, and dishonest. I'm never using any service remotely associated with MPOE-PR and I hope others follow suit. It is mind boggling that that Bitbet's (and it's shareholders/representatives) response to this situation is to insult and berate snackman and anyone who dare come to his defense rather than just refund his bet and reconsider its policies, like any business that cares about its reputation and longevity would. This is not the behavior of an honest company but rather of scammers and bullies.
You are ugly and your mother dresses you funny. |
|
|
|
The site sucks in the first place. Why not model it after InTrade`s site, where users can sale stakes in their position? For example, if there is only 10 minutes left and an outcome looks almost certain to happen, you can sale a $0.01 position that states it won`t happen. Have each stake settle at $10 so if you`re right, you would then win $9.99, but if you`re wrong, you only lose $0.01. Likewise, if something is almost certain to happen, you can buy such a stake for $9.99, but then you only stand to gain $0.01 if you`re right. You can adjust the amounts accordingly depending on how likely/unlikely you believe an outcome to be until the last minute. Didn`t anyone use Intrade?
It`s preposterous to hear anyone affiliated with this site claim that users such as the OP are trying to `scam` other users by betting at the last minute. That`s how BitBet`s POS system is designed, for christs sake.
If the site owners are concerned, then they shoulder the burden of fixing it, not the users.
This was done to death. Read more, opine less. I'll rephrase, because we disagree on the definition of 'placed': I initiated transfer of my bet before the satisfaction of the bet statement. This could be verified by coinjedi if he timestamps transfer requests on Bets of Bitcoin.
We don't "disagree". You're trying to introduce the moment when you signed the check as relevant in the discussion. Your payment happens once the bank has received it, not before. What you meant to do, and what you thought were doing are immaterial in this discussion. Nobody has the time, or the interest, nor could ever be paid enough to care. All that matters is what you do. Learn this already. |
|
|
|
How would I have won "because my transfer was delayed"? I placed my bet before the satisfaction of the bet statement.
No, you have not. If you had, your bet would have been refunded. It's one thing to be clueless, it's another to lie about it. |
|
|
|
Well that's simply not true, but I guess you'll find that out in a courtroom. Have fun.  Gotta stand for something in this life. |
|
|
|
How can I trust you? You're anonymous!
That's correct, but do you expect someone non-anonymous to run a Bitcoin mixing service? Trust is something built up over time, but keep in mind our business model is very transparent.
Then kindly post it, along with your WoT credentials, and the other relevant details needed for those with level heads to actually make an assessment. |
|
|
|
Testimonium nihil ad rem et ad absurdum est. BitBet delenda est.
You know delenda is a feminine form? |
|
|
|
Their policies are predatory at the very least. When there is a high network txn load it is highly likely that even txn's with fees will be delayed. Perhaps this is their way of deterring sophisticated double spend attacks, but it hurts the average user way more.
They are thieves no different from the rest of the ponzi scammers out there; and mark my words, don't be surprised when they disappear with everyone's bitcoins one day (or they get "hacked").
Nobody forces you to bet on events that have just closed you know. That's the gist of this debate: somebody decided they have the god given right to bet on a proposition once it was clear which way it'd resolve, and then sucked at even trying to implement this in practice. The part where they sucked at the implementation is given undue weight, what's important is really the other half: don't be that asshole that looks at a bet for six months and sends a no fee tx once the resolution is imminent. Take a risk, that's what betting exists to reward. |
|
|
|
I have "invested" [apologies to micura mpoe] in several BTC securities. long story short; I felling REALLY insecure right now.
my question is; can anyone prove even ONE of these dreamers to be actually worth what they say they are?
Or am I simply mad?
"Micura" sounds like some sort of Godzilla villain.  If you're gonna invoke Mr. P, at least get his name right. Anyway, so long as you do your reading, ensure that you've understood it, and act accordingly, you stand to avoid the majority of scams floating around here, now and in the future. As for what things are and what they're worth: GPG contracts. Security that isn't based on the limitations of a "slick" website. Actual IPOs from actually planned out, accountable entities. Yes, there's a fee. You're paying for that which works, which in the end is all that's worth paying for. No, I'm not especially nice in that In-N-Out Burger sort of way (though I'm just PR, you don't have to deal with me at all to use the exchange). The lies, the sugar-coating, the beating around the bush, is exactly for cheap food service and has no place in BTC finance. Plenty of people have thrown a fit over these facts, I'm sure plenty of people will continue to do so, and will continue to lose their money. MPEx will be right here. |
|
|
|
Please explain how my conduct could be "deliberate malfeasance". I bet "YES". The bet's end date for a "NO" resolution was April 17th, 2014. I could not have pulled off a double-spend scam.
Your conduct could be deliberate malfeasance quite simply: anyone at any time for any reason can introduce a transaction with no fees that will take forever to confirm. BitBet can in no way influence this, it's fully in the control of the transaction author. With control comes responsibility, and with responsibility the presumption of willfulness. So, if your transaction doesn't behave as it should, you're prima facie trying to steal something. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
