Luke-Jr is not an employee. The true side might have won due to the timezone thing and some other factors, but it's close enough that BoB is justified in calling it a draw IMO. It'd be different (though not enough for a scammer tag) if it was BoB's policy to never decide events as draws if at all possible, but they seem to decide events as draws frequently when there would be significant controversy if either side won.
1) You are also not qualified to judge betting statements 2) This one wasn't close. Here is the short list of those saying that Draw was acceptable: coinjedi Theymos nathaneees There are a few hundred users that think it's an easy decision, some of which are betting against me in other BFL-facing wagers. You see 2 giant threads calling them scammers. Really think a few hundred of us are just irrational and angry at losing fair and square? This one is so lopsided what is right and what is wrong, and once again a situation proves Theymos is not impartial. It has seemed to me, for a long time, for whatever reason, this community makes a lot of pro-BFL decisions. Theymos has made them in the past, as has gmaxwell, and now coinjedi makes a pro-BFL move that will destroy his site. This is not something that is shocking to me or should be to you guys. It is plain and simply outright theft. There is unlikely to be any punishment except what will certainly be a very noticeable absence of action at BoB. |
|
|
|
question on MGR. affiliate page Terms and Conditions say : We pay our affiliates 20% of MGR (managed gross revenue) for life. im not so sure what they mean by that. lets say a player at 50% RB pays 100 rake, he gts 50 back, do i get 20 and the site gets 30 or just 10 for me and 40 for the site? also, do ther costs like overlays and other promotion costs like when they used to offer high hands, do they count as deductions to an affiliate's MGR? thanks all.
in that above example 40-10 for the site. MGR is simply player rake - rakeback & other promotions (like krill rakeback, tablestarter rakeback, high hands if we ever turn them back on) just the actual amount SwC made off the player, the affiliate gets a 20% cut. micon@ sealwithclubs if you ever have any affiliate questions. |
|
|
|
Our reasoning is already on the page, so I will not repeat it here. We do our best to judge by the user written descriptions of statements. Unfortunately sometimes the outcome is not as unambiguous as we want. I guess that is why lawyer-talk evolved to be so convoluted. This particular case does not meet the unambiguity criteria we set ourselves.
Everybody got their full bet back, including the original submission fee. We could choose to select one side and earn a significant commission, enough to buy a nice laptop these days, but we didn't.
I respect everybody who thinks that we didn't judge well enough, but scamming is a different matter. I hope at least some of the bettors understand and respect our decision when the dust settles.
this post is a great example why bettors should never gamble at a site run by this man. "Lawyer-talk" demands an extremely high price because it makes sure that bullshit like this doesn't happen. That is valuable to humans and has been for years. "Laywer-talk" is likely your simple words for "a clearly written contract with explicit terms" You are not qualified to run a site where you will certainly be called on again to make judgement calls. Can you not see the unified voice here screaming that you fucked up and got it wrong? No compensation? don't feel the need to explain yourself in the face of 100+ angry posts from bettors that feel you are a scammer? |
|
|
|
Crossposting: At this point I'll go ahead and reveal that I am the bet's creator, and that I initially took a large position on the "True" side. By ruling the way they did, BoB effectively took from me over 150 BTC in potential winnings and commissions that I feel should rightfully be mine. Sure, I made mistakes when I made the bet (which BoB had an opportunity to correct when they approved the bet), but I still feel like "True" is pretty clearly the correct outcome, based on multiple points. Some of those being: • BFL shipped nothing. The bet title clearly is about BFL *shipping* a Bitforce SC product. Coinjedi has said himself that the bet title is a part of the bet. [1] • The pictures were posted after midnight. No matter whether you go by GMT, Eastern time (official BoB time [2]), or Central time (which I believe is BFL time and also Luke-Jr time). Sure, the pics were arguably taken before midnight, but the bet clearly says they had to be *posted* before April. • The pictures were not credible. They were taken by Josh/Inaba, a BFL employee, and were of a device that was pretty clearly sitting on a test bench at BFL. The bet clearly says the pictures must be credible. • The pictures claim to show a product hashing at about 25GH/s, which Luke-Jr says in a Little Single. There was no such thing as a Little Single when the bet was made. The 3 Bitforce SC products the bet concerns, and their hashrates concerning the bet are those listed in the post linked in the Bet. • It is not clear whether or not Luke-jr is a BFL employee. He continues to not answer when asked if he is/has received compensation from BFL. [3] At the least, it looks like he's getting his order bumped to the front of the line. My position appears to be overwhelmingly supported by public opinion on the forums. [4] Opinion Coinjedi solicited I might add. Sure BoB (and Luke-Jr and Josh/Inaba and BFL) will lose face over this, but that does nothing to fill my wallet, and history is quickly forgotten. I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it. Wouldn't you? [1]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1726858#msg1726858[2]: http://betsofbitco.in/help, in "What is the difference between deadline and event date?": "All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time." [3]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1729969#msg1729969[4]: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.01) well said. 2) Coinjedi's silence on this matter is deafening. He made the wrong decision, everyone but the most hardcore BFL supporters agreed. He chose to ignore all of this and continue, bet was declared a draw and he's on to the next one. 3) Theymos ruled that coinjedi / BoB are not scammers. so it's up to us, the angry masses, to boycott BoB publicly and loudly, and never allow coinjedi to forget how he fucked some gamblers out of ~$30k+ when delimited in USD. |
|
|
|
1) lolz at that pic 2) you totally earned it crosby. you have grinded haaaaard my man! 3) no srsly LOLz / loving bitcoinpokerblog... these are brilliant!!  |
|
|
|
can we propose a scammer tag for coinjedi? His website clearly stated if they ship?
please, +1 the scammer thread everyone. Show coinjedi and theymos how scammy you think this is. The more individuals that +1 it the louder it becomes. nathanrees19 already downplayed the scammer thread, saying a draw isn't that bad. to me, it's nothing short of stealing. How do the rest of you feel about it? I'm "betting" nathanrees19, the long time BFL shill, is once again in the minority on this point. |
|
|
|
-1
Bitcoin - where calling a draw and refunding earns you a scammer tag.
As a side note, I can hardly believe that I'm agreeing with Luke.
hello BFL shill. You offend rational thinkers if you believe calling a draw when one side obviously won is anything short of stealing. |
|
|
|
I think this accusation is too ridiculous to spend time typing up a defense (it's obviously bogus), but if any moderator is taking it seriously for any reason feel free to contact me.
yeah, don't spend any time on the defense. all these ppl from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.0;all are prolly crazy just like me: Nothing was moved, nothing was shipped. picking one board on the test bench, taking a picture of it, and saying "that one belongs to some other guy, we shipped!" is retarded.
"Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013"
A prototype sitting on a bench at BFL does not qualify as "shipped", no matter how much you fondled it.
This is all we need to know. BFL has shipped nothing yet. No Easter Shipping Miracle was performed.
They have a working prototype that Luke-Jr has access to and is helping with software development.
Josh claiming on BFL chat last night that they shipped just seemed really disingenuous and slimy. Par for the course as far as Josh goes I suppose.
Grats and great job BFL!! However for my 2 cents, the bet's outcome should be true. "Shipped" I think is the keyword here. I don't think anyone would agree that BFL has 'shipped' - sorry to those who might get mad at the outcome of this bet but hey, you can just mine back your losses right?  Disclosure: I did not bet on this BFL doesn't have a working device.
I guess you have two options.
1. pay the obvious winners
2. pay the losers or cancel the bet, thus destroying the credibility your business relies upon
What a dilemma.
(no, I don't have any stake in the outcome of this bet. it does bother me to see people try and weasel out of debts though.)
Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013 - This is the title. It is quite specific. If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths. Even comparisons from the representative of the company (BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled. By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about. What more do you really need? Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong. I am sorry to say it but it is true.
Am I wrong on this?
Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording? Please think about the previous statement before just responding. Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that? I can't really see how that was not the case. This is my argument.
Disclosure: I did not bet on this claim
Ok, people know I am a BFL supporter and have a bet against Micon as to when they will ship, etc. But I'll say that I can't see any way in which BFL shipped a device before April 1, or any way that this bets of bitcoin bet could conclude otherwise.
Even if you use the technical wording of the bet and do not include the text of the title as being part of the requirement (which I certainly would), some conditions of the bet were not met.
Now, where I disagree with Micon is that coinjedi is in the wrong here. I think it is absolutely prudent and necessary to take time and gather all the facts before making a final decision involving tens of thousands of dollars (this is a several hundred BTC bet, is it not?). So, I applaud coinjedi for not rushing to a decision in the event of a close call, which this certainly is. On the surface, it seems obvious to most people what the outcome should be, but because there is disagreement, coinjedi is right to take his time in deciding the proper result of the bet.
If he somehow concludes that BFL DID ship a unit before April 1st, then and only then would I lose faith in betsofbitco.in.
I have a 50 coin bet w/SgtSpike, he is pro-BFL. He is also a gentleman bettor. This is obvious to us
There's nothing to debate about. You must consider all of the text of the contract. The title is part of the contract. You cannot ignore it. The title says "shipped", and BFL didn't "ship" anything. Case closed.
I can't believe this is actually being debated.
Unofficial BFL News @BFL_News 2h
* Chips count per device may change, depending on results this week
Unofficial BFL News @BFL_News 2h
* New boards testing this week. (...) I'd guess shipping next week.
Seems to me that it fails here: "shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee."
There were NO PHOTOs of the device they are selling. There was a photo of a test board. I believe if you go to their website you can see the fancy boxes they are packing the guts in. I do NOT see any photos of the thing that "luke jr" (no Josh Zerlan according to the photo info) took pictures of. Can you send me to the place on the website where I can buy that "thing"?
"and report its hashrate."
Was the hashrate reported? Does single picture of setup with this info on screen count as report?
It's quite hard to say what are the exact terms and was the statement true even if conditions are barely met.
At the least community will learn to word these bets better.
vote: NOT SHIPPED
The credibility of the information provided is tainted. The decision should be pretty clear cut.
I don't have any stake in any of these bets, but am confused how the obvious decision hasn't been made yet.
BFL lost, and i suggest next time make the terms more clear to avoid this from happening again.
Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:
• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.
"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met
My vote is this is an engineering sample. This is not "shipped" to customer. "Shipped" indicates a full working unit in the customers hands at the customer premesis. Clearly this is not.
"at least one BFL customer" - debatable as this occured at BFL's location, the device is not actually with the customer
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - OK
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - OK
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - OK
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - debatable at this point
As for 75% of advertised hashrate, the answer is NO.
"Advertised" was 60Ghash. Just because they revised it to 30GH at the last second doesn't meet the definition when the bets were placed. 23GH is 76% of 30GH.
GRASPING. AT. STRAWS.
Pictures were not posted until April. Bet outcome should be true.
Very disappointed to see this after BoB specially solicited feedback, and the feedback being pretty much overwhelmingly in support of the true outcome.
What, did it have to be unanimous? What was the point?
One of your bets at Bets of Bitcoin has been decided as a draw and refunded. Details are below:
Statement: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013
Link: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701
Your side: Agree
Your bet amount: 0.25
Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in bye betsofbitco.in I'm so pissed at betsofbitco.in right now.
They owe me THOUSANDS of dollars from that bet.
BULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
bestofbitco.in, you are now on the same level as BFL
Scammer Tags!
Ohhh BFL, the ripples you create humor me.
Ohhh, Betsofbitco.in, how you have suprised me.
Thought the answer to this was an obvious one.
I'd refuse to use that service considering the shaky and dubious evidence to support that it was even SHIPPED! It is not in the consumers hand what gives. Obviously there is some conflict of interest here. Sad to see people WELCH on a bet like this and goes to the ethics of Betsofbitco.in., Luke and BFL. Sad indeed.
|
|
|
|
Luke-Jr just replied to the scam-accusation thread [ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165500.0 ] with this: I think this accusation is too ridiculous to spend time typing up a defense (it's obviously bogus), but if any moderator is taking it seriously for any reason feel free to contact me.
Apparently Luke-Jr has recently become a hardcore BFL shill. by his words above he feels this accusation is "too ridiculous" to defend. Do you think all of these people are crazy Luke? At the very least it seems any rational thinker would have to find grounds for scammer discussion: Nothing was moved, nothing was shipped. picking one board on the test bench, taking a picture of it, and saying "that one belongs to some other guy, we shipped!" is retarded.
"Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013"
A prototype sitting on a bench at BFL does not qualify as "shipped", no matter how much you fondled it.
This is all we need to know. BFL has shipped nothing yet. No Easter Shipping Miracle was performed.
They have a working prototype that Luke-Jr has access to and is helping with software development.
Josh claiming on BFL chat last night that they shipped just seemed really disingenuous and slimy. Par for the course as far as Josh goes I suppose.
Grats and great job BFL!! However for my 2 cents, the bet's outcome should be true. "Shipped" I think is the keyword here. I don't think anyone would agree that BFL has 'shipped' - sorry to those who might get mad at the outcome of this bet but hey, you can just mine back your losses right? Disclosure: I did not bet on this BFL doesn't have a working device.
I guess you have two options.
1. pay the obvious winners
2. pay the losers or cancel the bet, thus destroying the credibility your business relies upon
What a dilemma.
(no, I don't have any stake in the outcome of this bet. it does bother me to see people try and weasel out of debts though.)
Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013 - This is the title. It is quite specific. If bettors don't accept that this claim was the understanding of the bet, then those people are plainly trying to tell untruths. Even comparisons from the representative of the company (BFL) was to how the shipments of Batch #1 of Avalon were handled. By invoking that, you are implicitly implying that shipping the product to a customer is what the bet is about. What more do you really need? Any disagreement on these facts are just wrong. I am sorry to say it but it is true.
Am I wrong on this?
Isn't the intent more important than the technical wording? Please think about the previous statement before just responding. Didn't the people betting that this would not happen, go into it thinking that? I can't really see how that was not the case. This is my argument.
Disclosure: I did not bet on this claim
Ok, people know I am a BFL supporter and have a bet against Micon as to when they will ship, etc. But I'll say that I can't see any way in which BFL shipped a device before April 1, or any way that this bets of bitcoin bet could conclude otherwise.
Even if you use the technical wording of the bet and do not include the text of the title as being part of the requirement (which I certainly would), some conditions of the bet were not met.
Now, where I disagree with Micon is that coinjedi is in the wrong here. I think it is absolutely prudent and necessary to take time and gather all the facts before making a final decision involving tens of thousands of dollars (this is a several hundred BTC bet, is it not?). So, I applaud coinjedi for not rushing to a decision in the event of a close call, which this certainly is. On the surface, it seems obvious to most people what the outcome should be, but because there is disagreement, coinjedi is right to take his time in deciding the proper result of the bet.
If he somehow concludes that BFL DID ship a unit before April 1st, then and only then would I lose faith in betsofbitco.in.
I have a 50 coin bet w/SgtSpike, he is pro-BFL. He is also a gentleman bettor. This is obvious to us
There's nothing to debate about. You must consider all of the text of the contract. The title is part of the contract. You cannot ignore it. The title says "shipped", and BFL didn't "ship" anything. Case closed.
I can't believe this is actually being debated.
Unofficial BFL News @BFL_News 2h
* Chips count per device may change, depending on results this week
Unofficial BFL News @BFL_News 2h
* New boards testing this week. (...) I'd guess shipping next week.
Seems to me that it fails here: "shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee."
There were NO PHOTOs of the device they are selling. There was a photo of a test board. I believe if you go to their website you can see the fancy boxes they are packing the guts in. I do NOT see any photos of the thing that "luke jr" (no Josh Zerlan according to the photo info) took pictures of. Can you send me to the place on the website where I can buy that "thing"?
"and report its hashrate."
Was the hashrate reported? Does single picture of setup with this info on screen count as report?
It's quite hard to say what are the exact terms and was the statement true even if conditions are barely met.
At the least community will learn to word these bets better.
vote: NOT SHIPPED
The credibility of the information provided is tainted. The decision should be pretty clear cut.
I don't have any stake in any of these bets, but am confused how the obvious decision hasn't been made yet.
BFL lost, and i suggest next time make the terms more clear to avoid this from happening again.
Ignoring the title, let's work with the conditionals for a moment and break them down:
• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.
"at least one BFL customer" - Condition Met
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - Condition Met
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - Condition Not Met --- Did Luke take the pictures and post them or did Josh? To that end, which forum is this condition referring to? How much detail is "enough" detail? Does the "device" have to be of consumer quality [not a test board, but one that could be shipped to a customer]?
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - Condition Met
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - Condition Met
My vote is this is an engineering sample. This is not "shipped" to customer. "Shipped" indicates a full working unit in the customers hands at the customer premesis. Clearly this is not.
"at least one BFL customer" - debatable as this occured at BFL's location, the device is not actually with the customer
"with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date" - OK
"shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum" - OK
"including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate." - OK
"This customer cannot be a BFL employee." - debatable at this point
As for 75% of advertised hashrate, the answer is NO.
"Advertised" was 60Ghash. Just because they revised it to 30GH at the last second doesn't meet the definition when the bets were placed. 23GH is 76% of 30GH.
GRASPING. AT. STRAWS.
Pictures were not posted until April. Bet outcome should be true.
Very disappointed to see this after BoB specially solicited feedback, and the feedback being pretty much overwhelmingly in support of the true outcome.
What, did it have to be unanimous? What was the point?
One of your bets at Bets of Bitcoin has been decided as a draw and refunded. Details are below:
Statement: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013
Link: http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701
Your side: Agree
Your bet amount: 0.25
Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in bye betsofbitco.in I'm so pissed at betsofbitco.in right now.
They owe me THOUSANDS of dollars from that bet.
BULLSHITBULLSHITBULLSHIT
bestofbitco.in, you are now on the same level as BFL
Scammer Tags!
Ohhh BFL, the ripples you create humor me.
Ohhh, Betsofbitco.in, how you have suprised me.
Thought the answer to this was an obvious one.
I'd refuse to use that service considering the shaky and dubious evidence to support that it was even SHIPPED! It is not in the consumers hand what gives. Obviously there is some conflict of interest here. Sad to see people WELCH on a bet like this and goes to the ethics of Betsofbitco.in., Luke and BFL. Sad indeed.
|
|
|
|
I have started a scam accusation thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165500.0 they have already paid out all the bets as a draw. coinjedi & betsofbitco.in are plain scammers. He let BFL pressure him into declaring a draw. LukeJr. played BFL's pawn to ensure this. shameful. |
|
|
|
I think this accusation is too ridiculous to spend time typing up a defense (it's obviously bogus), but if any moderator is taking it seriously for any reason feel free to contact me.
I'll bet the users pile in here to +1 this by the dozens. You think we are all crazy and only you are sane? |
|
|
|
It says enough when all you have is ad hominem and no logical arguments. here is a logical argument: who took the picture that is accepted as the "hashrate" for this device? Josh did, nobody's trying to hide or deny that. should a BFL employee taking the pic be considered valid evidence of a hashrate? I don't see why not. I mean, as far as hashrate is concerned I could have just as easily taken a picture of my own screen. since we are ignoring the title of this bet, we must throw out the shipping. so we know the device sits in BFL's offices and Josh Zerlan took the picture. LukeJr is claiming to be the owner of this device. So now let's look at the only part of the statement in question: For this statement to be false, both of the two following conditions must be met:
• Before April 1st 2013, at least one BFL customer with a bitcointalk.org forum account established prior to the bet's opening date shall post detailed and credible photos of the device on the forum, including photos of it operating, and report its hashrate. This customer cannot be a BFL employee.
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
-- A BFL employee took a picture of it operating -- a "credible photo" cannot be taken by a BFL employee. It is against all common sense. -- LukeJr can be considered a BFL Employee. He is doing work for them in exchange for compensation. |
|
|
|
It says enough when all you have is ad hominem and no logical arguments.
here is a logical argument: who took the picture that is accepted as the "hashrate" for this device? should a BFL employee taking the pic be considered valid evidence of a hashrate? |
|
|
|
1) lukejr shows extremely poor character shilling for BFL on the matter of this wager 2) Scam Accusation started: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165500.0 please pile in, coinjedi needs a scammer tag and betsofbitco.in must be lit up. |
|
|
|
|
1) for those that say "you just didn't win, you didn't lose anything" you just don't understand gambling or equity.
2) I just withdrew my refunded bet, as I'm sure all the guys that got away free betting the wrong side also did, so there will be no recourse here for those of us that rightfully won the bet and got fucked.
3) A fee was taken from my wager! lol betsofbitco.in, extremely classy
4) I will start the scammer tag thread in Scam accusations. This is inexcusable. I also believe we need a forum ad saying not to ever wager on this site.
5) There is no possible way this bet could ever legitimately end in a push. That is just amateur hour, it makes big-stakes statement betting for BTC look amateur hour, and coinjedi is a scammer.
6) coinjedi took 1 .jpg that Josh Zerlan snapped as accepted "hashrate" - and what was the posted hashrate again? how the fuck is 24 > 75% of 40?? not a video declaring said hashrate? just a pic by a BFL employee good enough?
whatever, live and learn. Do not ever use betsofbitco.in.
let's unleash holy hell on them IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
I call for a full boycott of betsofbitco.in
I will personally send the first coin to run an advertising campaign against them. This is total bullshit. Bettors have been cheated by a bitcoin site.
I fucking hate this shit. It cheapens the entire space.
someone tally the users that said it was false vs. true. Even the guys that I have BFL bets with claimed BFL lost!
|
|
|
|
We have carefully examined both sides of the argument. First of all, on our site title is definitely part of the agreement. We do not count the current status as BFL "shipping" the products, therefore other bets are still open. On the other hand the conditions in the description are met. Unfortunately the statement description, as it is written, can be interpreted as complementary conditions to shipping for more clear evidence or the definition of shipping. As much as we would like to settle the bet on one side (as we would earn a significant commission) we do not think that the situation is unambiguous under these circumstances which would be very hard to foresee at the time of statement initiation. As we have been doing before, we will continue to call a draw if there is a such an ambiguity. All the bets will be refunded without any commission.
I will launch internet marketing jihad upon your site if you call it a draw. I will label you personally a scammer and many others will as well. With this statement alone your site is done. If you do the right thing the outrage will not be so great. pay the BFL don'ts, take the line. It is super, duper 100% clear. Take a poll, although you clearly ignored the vast majority of these posters the first time... |
|
|
|
admin@sealswithclubs.eu for all connectivity issues, obv 1) Working fine from Las Vegas 2) 300+ currently connected 3) a buddy that travels EPT events said he can only hit SwC with the PC client on his laptop about 1/2 the time. He was recently in France and said he couldn't connect, although he is not very technically savvy.
|
|
|
|
If this goes on another 24 hrs I'm going to go on the offensive, personally. It appears someone with a large pro-BFL bet has gotten coinjedi's ear on this matter, and he is still "debating" in the face of overwhelming evidence for the correct decision: The BFL ASIC never left the BFL Lab therefor it was never "shipped".  Avalons where photographed being unpacked from their shipping containers. BFL doesn't have a working device.
Have you actually received any correspondence from BFL backers claiming to have won the bet? That would be sad and pathetic.
I guess you have two options.
1. pay the obvious winners
2. pay the losers or cancel the bet, thus destroying the credibility your business relies upon
What a dilemma.
What can be seen in the OP is NOT a finished product, nothing that will be shipped to customers.
When Avalon shipped the first two devices, those were the FINISHED products. The same products which were later received by "ordinary" customers.
This "shipping" by BFL is NOT comparable to what was shipped by Avalon.
People saying BFL has shipped should as well request to remove Matthew's scammer tag then.
sorry a prototype is NOT shipped.
If I produce 10 boards with crap hanging off them and screws holding them to a table , then supply them to developers that does not count as shipping.
totally done with betsofbitco.in. This is very damaging for their business, and it pisses me off to see one of the more respected, older btc gambling sites making decisions (or indecision) that are so clearly influenced by the obvious losing side of the statement. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
