Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2019, 05:46:18 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: coinjedi / betsofbitco.in SCAMMERS: Declares "Push" on obvious win for BFL bet  (Read 27476 times)
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 04:57:11 AM
Last edit: April 03, 2013, 05:11:05 AM by Micon
 #1

Bitcointalk user 'coinjedi' the admin of betsofbitco.in blatantly cheated the rightful winners of this bet which he somehow declares a "draw"

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701



Here is the thread discussing this bet.  As you can see it is overwhelmingly in favor of ruling correctly that BFL did not in fact ship.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.0

If anyone has personal information on coinjedi please post it here or if you'd like PM it to me.

Username:  coinjedi
email: coinjedi@gmail.com
alt email: feedback@betsofbitco.in

Developing...

I'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
1576086378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576086378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576086378
Reply with quote  #2

1576086378
Report to moderator
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1576086378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576086378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576086378
Reply with quote  #2

1576086378
Report to moderator
1576086378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1576086378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1576086378
Reply with quote  #2

1576086378
Report to moderator
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 04:59:36 AM
Last edit: April 17, 2013, 04:58:22 AM by TradeFortress
 #2

I bet no on bitbet.us and bet yes previously on betsofbitco.in, so I have to say I can't really complain much about this.

But declaring it a draw the wrong thing to do.. This is a prototype.
needbmw
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:10:27 AM
 #3

+1

BFL did not ship product, they just took a photo of a semi-working prototype which is out of specs.

NO PSAKING!
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:11:39 AM
 #4

The community really needs to be warned against coinjedi and his phony escrow service.  Not only did he make an insane and obviously incorrect ruling but he provided no explanation.  Shouldn't an escrow service at least provide a summary of their judgement?

Am I right that hundreds of BTC were riding on this bet?  And that betsofbitco.in still went ahead and charged fees even after cheating the winners???

Coinjedi needs a scammer tag and betsofbitco.in should be avoided at all costs.

Luke Jr. was not only evasive in the thread linked, but he also went out of his way to deceive.  He also deserves a scammer tag IMO, but I guess that's a seperate matter.

I had no action on either side of this wager.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:17:05 AM
 #5

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.

TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:20:09 AM
 #6

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.
It's pretty obvious that coinjedi won't be declared a scammer, but it's a black mark for betsofbitco.in and you.
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 05:24:21 AM
 #7

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?

I'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
Ekaros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:31:34 AM
 #8

I agree, the decision was weird and not well reasoned. And still taking the fees after accepting bet with bad terms is not good.

12pA5nZB5AoXZaaEeoxh5bNqUGXwUUp3Uv
http://firstbits.com/1qdiz
Feel free to help poor student!
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 05:49:44 AM
 #9

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?  Tongue

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.


Not only did the ASIC not leave the BFL lab, so was never shipped anywhere

but also this..

Quote
This customer cannot be a BFL employee.

Luke Jr was flown in on BLFs dollar to code their software so is an employee!

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/97-preparing-my-trip-bfl.html

How many other "customers" where flown in at BFL's expense?

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?

Code:
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





It is very clear that the conditions are not met --

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

That message refers to a press release here:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Containing:
"2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299"

The second condition of the bet:
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.


40 * .75 = 30.  That rate was not met.


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'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
Frankie Delaney
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:56:46 AM
 #10

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.

Says one of the three people involved int he fuckin scam. This thread shouldn't only be for coinjedi, luke-Jr and Inaba/BFL_Josh should be right there in the title with them.
FreshJR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:36:36 AM
 #11

+1

Also +1 Luke-jr scammer tag
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:49:32 AM
 #12

+1 scammer tag
peasant
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 265
Merit: 250


Bitmaker


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 07:28:32 AM
 #13

+1
nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 08:02:17 AM
 #14

-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.
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 08:29:32 AM
 #15

-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'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 08:42:46 AM
 #16

+1 This bet should've been paid to the agree bettors. BFL did not ship anything.

nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 08:44:20 AM
 #17

-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.

hi micon

You offend psychopath gamblers if you believe calling a draw when one side obviously won is anything short of stealing.

Someone's mad because BFL turned out not to be a scam.
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:23:15 AM
 #18

rediculous this is a draw

IF we ignore the bold title (no, when I buy eggs, I expect eggs), then the post is FAR from credible. 

BFL did not ship, how is this not a trivial resolution?
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 492
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:26:51 AM
 #19

-1.

Call it a poor decision on BoB's part if you like. But unless you have some sort of proof of their collusion with Josh and Luke, it's not a scam. Nor is it stealing. Unless you are a serious gambling addict.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:31:34 AM
 #20

-1.

Call it a poor decision on BoB's part if you like. But unless you have some sort of proof of their collusion with Josh and Luke, it's not a scam. Nor is it stealing. Unless you are a serious gambling addict.

Yep. BoB gets less money from a draw than a win or lose.
Justin00
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:33:59 AM
 #21

how can it be a draw..

they either shipped or they didn't...

TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:35:35 AM
 #22

-1.

Call it a poor decision on BoB's part if you like. But unless you have some sort of proof of their collusion with Josh and Luke, it's not a scam. Nor is it stealing. Unless you are a serious gambling addict.

Yep. BoB gets less money from a draw than a win or lose.
Unless Inaba bet some coins, or CoinJedi bet some coins.
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 492
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:35:51 AM
 #23

As a side note, I can hardly believe that I'm agreeing with Luke.

Vomit-inducing, isn't it?  Grin
But don't worry, I don't *think* you're agreeing with him. Luke (the whore) is under the impression that BFL clearly WON that bet. No word yet on what kickbacks Josh is giving him to continue insisting on that line. Whereas you (and I) merely hold that a draw is a marginally acceptable outcome.

But I [sarc]really hope[/sarc] that the battle lines continue to be hardened and that my so-far utterly non-descript reputation on these boards becomes dependent on which side of the Josh/Luke-Micon axis I must apparently jump in to defend.  Roll Eyes

ETA: re the suggestion that CoinJedi may have placed on that bet - well obviously if that was the case there'd be a serious conflict of interest and I'd join everyone else in calling for a scammer tag for CoinJedi.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:49:37 AM
 #24

Id be willing to guess that BFL or affils bet on bets "that they will ship" to increase customer interest/convince that they will/self-disbelief.

I'd love to be able to see who bet they'd actaully ship (which they didnt)

Anyway, obvious scam tag.
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:56:24 AM
 #25

+1 on "scammer tag" for this site and guy!  If MNW gets one he should get one to

- The device wasn't shipped.
- An employee(Josh Z) took the photo displaying a working ASIC (could be fake)
- Status of Luke-Jr as a BFL employee is not clear
- Little SC wasn't part of the bet! Only the jalapeńo, the Single SC and the Rig take part in the bet!


I have no stake in this bet.

talbitcoin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:58:33 AM
 #26

I don't know if I would call this a scam, not just yet. But clearly a bad and unjust call by the referee which decided the game against those who actually scored the goals and rightfully deserved to win it.
As for Luke - By siding with the losing side on this with his supposedly-clever word-playing, he comes off, at the very least, as a major a bull***t artist. It's the same kind of bull***t artistry I got used to seeing from BFL over the time I've been following them since I ordered (and now - waiting for my refund).
nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:04:23 AM
 #27

As a side note, I can hardly believe that I'm agreeing with Luke.

Vomit-inducing, isn't it?  Grin
But don't worry, I don't *think* you're agreeing with him.

Oh, thank god science, you're right.

ETA: re the suggestion that CoinJedi may have placed on that bet - well obviously if that was the case there'd be a serious conflict of interest and I'd join everyone else in calling for a scammer tag for CoinJedi.

Agreed.
Lethos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


Keep it Simple. Every Bit Matters.


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 10:15:57 AM
 #28

I wasn't even betting on this one.
But it was obvious on a lot of points, that BFL had failed to do it.

They said they include the title in the agreement
Quote
Title: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

• 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.


# Point 1

According to the Bet site information, the bet is directing you to the annoucment BFL made linking you to:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

I'm fully aware that, their has been changes to what they will say each of these will do. Changing them respectively to 4.5 / 60 / 1500.
Also added a "Little SC Single", which is 30Gh/s. I'm sure there was further tweaks, as I did not follow it that closely.
This was done after the bet was issued apparently, so it is questionable to allow the change in hashrate, to add a device, can't really be taken into account. The original bet was talking about the original 3, not this added 4th one.


#Point 2

BFL Customer or Employee - He appears to be somewhere in the middle. He clearly got 1st dibs on it, for "work" he did, so he is certainly not a normal customer, but he is not an on the books employee.

The pictures were provided by Josh (BFL Employee), showing a prototype, hashing just a few hours and posted just after the deadline. The "device" was still at BFL labs (ie. Not shipped), Luke appears to operate the computer remotely.


#Point 3

The device does hash, but the 75% requirement being met doesn't matter as it doesn't meet it or doesn't apply. It hashes at about 24-25Gh/s, Since either it's a SC single (75% of 40Gh/s is 30Gh/s) and it doesn't meet the requirement or it's a Little SC single and it doesn't count as one of the original 3.


Summary

It was ruled as a draw by BoB, even though it clearly was not. They failed at every point. So It was "True", 'BFL would not ship'.

Further more, it was clearly stated no commission would be taken, but I've already seen reports that people are indeed being hit with one.
BoB made a bad decision too quickly, on one of the hottest discussions in bitcoin for a long time now (which also had a bet on) and instead of investigating properly, just pulled out the Draw card instead. It was so hotly debated, not because it being close true/false situation, but because BFL and the BFL supporters were actually trying to steal a win at the last minute. It appears they succeeded in some small way, and BoB helped them.
If the reports of commissions actually still being taken are true, BoB has managed to take a cut from both sides in this rather large bet.

Those directly associated with BoB deserve a scammer tag.

Lethos Designs - DevSecOps // Blog // Lethos Designs UK ## Lisa's Workshop - OT ## DAC Europe - PMC
Projects: AnoMsg // Prometheus // Logos // Icharus //  DevilDog // Avatar
bitvientiane
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:22:15 AM
 #29

You must be a shill to judge BFL shipped here. +1 to the scammer tag, but I doubt it will happen.
Kelticfox
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 535
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:31:12 AM
Last edit: April 03, 2013, 11:57:46 AM by Kelticfox
 #30

BFL_Josh was called out about this on the BFL forum as well.

One thing has been bothering me though thinking about it.....

In BFL_Josh's video (at BFL) you see the setup (plugs, voltage meter, multimeter etc). In Luke-Jr's pictures (after 'shipped to Luke-Jr') you see the same set up, just from a different (and closer) angle.

Josh's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4bgho5JSI
Luke-Jr's Pics: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=755&d=1364793240 (https://forums.butterflylabs.com/blogs/luke-jr/118-my-first-asics.html)

Both have a kill-a-watt voltage meter, both using Lenovo laptops, both the multimeter and the voltage meter are the same distance away from each other in the multiplug.



But don't worry, I don't *think* you're agreeing with him. Luke (the whore) is under the impression that BFL clearly WON that bet. No word yet on what kickbacks Josh is giving him to continue insisting on that line. Whereas you (and I) merely hold that a draw is a marginally acceptable outcome.

Of course he would.... they're mining on his pool! At ~$250 a day wouldn't you?

Quote
Unofficial BFL News ‏@BFL_News 31 Mar
eligius.st pool stats page for Luke's ASIC:  http://eligius.st/~wizkid057/newstats/userstats.php/1CdcYVP4T4hjHwt353pEnGHrigeDLvuvZL …



The topic obviously has ramifications for http://www.betsofbitco.in/item?id=1352 as well (shipping before mid-April)...
However the "All Butterfly Labs employees or affiliates are discounted" means that Luke-Jr would be discounted to be fair.

Veni, Vidi, Cidere, Prenda In Gen, Interlitum Verlgo Stipes, Dissiptum.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 10:44:51 AM
 #31

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.

Seems like you have something to hide.
What would you have tell the mod behind the scenes that you cannot tell us?

Moreover, what makes you think this bet was a draw despite your weesely and unsuccessfull attempt to meet the criteria.
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:28:20 AM
 #32

I had no stake in the bet.
betsofbitco.in admitted that the title of the listing is part of the bet. Getting a consultant who you pay expenses for, to post photos of a prototype that's still sitting on the test bench, obviously doesn't count as shipping a unit. It might be enough to show that a BFL ASIC is able to hash, but it doesn't count as shipping.

Any argument that betsofbitco.in didn't make a commission on this bet, and thus didn't earn anything from it, is bunk because this decision is obvisouly corrupt. Who knows how much the losing side (those who bet that BFL would have shipped by now) paid betsofbitco.in to settle in their favor?

+1 scammer on both coinjedi / betsofbitco.in and Luke_Jr
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:30:32 AM
 #33

+1 scam on both coinjedi / betsofbitco.in and Luke_Jr
I had no stake in the bet.
betsofbitco.in admitted that the title of the listing is part of the bet. Getting a consultant who you pay expenses for, to post photos of a prototype that's still sitting on the test bench, obviously doesn't count as shipping a unit.

Any argument that betsofbitco.in didn't make a commission on this bet, and thus didn't earn anything from it, is bunk because this decision is obvisouly corrupt. Who knows how much the losing side (those who bet that BFL would have shipped by now) paid betsofbitco.in to settle in their favor?

It's also a freeroll for BFL that bet on it being shipped
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 11:39:18 AM
 #34

Theft, plain and simple. Really hope they don't get away with it.

(I had no stake in the bet)

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
vampire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:45:55 AM
 #35

If "ALL" of the conditions of the bet didn't happen then the bet is lost.

According to http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701

Bet: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

Quote
Editor's note: 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.

Second:

The customer doesn't have the product, Luke-JR post a picture of the hashing unit right now with the timestamp.

Third:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.0 It was posted AFTER April 1st (EST)

Fourth:

I want my money back for this bet, since the errors was DISCOVERED, nowhere in the bet it says that they should be confirmed.

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=139

http://www.geekologie.com/2012/02/thats-embarrassing-faster-than-light-neu.php

GIANNAT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1038
Merit: 1000


Bitcoin entrepreneur and Pro Trader


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 11:47:37 AM
 #36

The unit hasn't been shipped at all. We have just seen a photo of a prototype. Ergo bet result is TRUE. He deserves the scammer tag

coinjedi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 184
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 11:49:14 AM
 #37

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.

Bets of Bitcoin
http://betsofbitco.in/
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:52:46 AM
 #38

"lawyer-talk"? This would never fly in a real court of law, and I think you know that. You've already confirmed that the title is part of the bet, and BFL did not ship. You owe the winners their winnings, but how you'll be able to come up with the money to pay them is anyones' guess.

Are you Matthew N. Wright of Something Awful dot com? I seem to remember his pirate savings and trust bet ending up with similar word games after the fact. The meaning of the bet is obvious to anyone, and it's just the losers who are coming up with after the fact rationalizations of how they didn't lose. Probably paid you more than the commission to reverse the bet too.
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:55:35 AM
 #39

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.

So instead, how much equity did the winners of the bet lose?

How much equity did we ever have? Luke or anyone from BFL could of made same pictures/bs post at any time.
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 11:56:15 AM
Last edit: April 03, 2013, 12:21:04 PM by Bogart
 #40

I wasn't even betting on this one.
But it was obvious on a lot of points, that BFL had failed to do it.

They said they include the title in the agreement
Quote
Title: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

• 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.


# Point 1

According to the Bet site information, the bet is directing you to the annoucment BFL made linking you to:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

I'm fully aware that, their has been changes to what they will say each of these will do. Changing them respectively to 4.5 / 60 / 1500.
Also added a "Little SC Single", which is 30Gh/s. I'm sure there was further tweaks, as I did not follow it that closely.
This was done after the bet was issued apparently, so it is questionable to allow the change in hashrate, to add a device, can't really be taken into account. The original bet was talking about the original 3, not this added 4th one.


#Point 2

BFL Customer or Employee - He appears to be somewhere in the middle. He clearly got 1st dibs on it, for "work" he did, so he is certainly not a normal customer, but he is not an on the books employee.

The pictures were provided by Josh (BFL Employee), showing a prototype, hashing just a few hours and posted just after the deadline. The "device" was still at BFL labs (ie. Not shipped), Luke appears to operate the computer remotely.


#Point 3

The device does hash, but the 75% requirement being met doesn't matter as it doesn't meet it or doesn't apply. It hashes at about 24-25Gh/s, Since either it's a SC single (75% of 40Gh/s is 30Gh/s) and it doesn't meet the requirement or it's a Little SC single and it doesn't count as one of the original 3.


Summary

It was ruled as a draw by BoB, even though it clearly was not. They failed at every point. So It was "True", 'BFL would not ship'.

Further more, it was clearly stated no commission would be taken, but I've already seen reports that people are indeed being hit with one.
BoB made a bad decision too quickly, on one of the hottest discussions in bitcoin for a long time now (which also had a bet on) and instead of investigating properly, just pulled out the Draw card instead. It was so hotly debated, not because it being close true/false situation, but because BFL and the BFL supporters were actually trying to steal a win at the last minute. It appears they succeeded in some small way, and BoB helped them.
If the reports of commissions actually still being taken are true, BoB has managed to take a cut from both sides in this rather large bet.

Those directly associated with BoB deserve a scammer tag.


Fully agreed.  +1 to a scammer tag for BoB/coinjedi, and I think Luke-Jr should maybe get one too for his involvement.  I've lost a lot of respect for him over this.

On a side note, why would BoB come on here and solicit feedbeck on the bet for a day, and then ignore the overwhelming opinion and rule like they did?  Seems like they set themselves up for this.  I think a poll thread will illustrate this more clearly:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165902.msg1730049

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
Kelticfox
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 535
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:00:08 PM
 #41

Sorry.... I had to..... could not resist....


Veni, Vidi, Cidere, Prenda In Gen, Interlitum Verlgo Stipes, Dissiptum.
ordy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 59
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:01:02 PM
 #42

+1 - especially point 1 which is totally unambiguous and overlooked in this fray

I wasn't even betting on this one.
But it was obvious on a lot of points, that BFL had failed to do it.

They said they include the title in the agreement
Quote
Title: Butterfly Labs will not ship ASIC-based Bitforce SC products before April 2013

This bet concerns the 3 Butterfly Labs Bitforce SC products announced here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886

• 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.


# Point 1

According to the Bet site information, the bet is directing you to the annoucment BFL made linking you to:
http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

I'm fully aware that, their has been changes to what they will say each of these will do. Changing them respectively to 4.5 / 60 / 1500.
Also added a "Little SC Single", which is 30Gh/s. I'm sure there was further tweaks, as I did not follow it that closely.
This was done after the bet was issued apparently, so it is questionable to allow the change in hashrate, to add a device, can't really be taken into account. The original bet was talking about the original 3, not this added 4th one.


#Point 2

BFL Customer or Employee - He appears to be somewhere in the middle. He clearly got 1st dibs on it, for "work" he did, so he is certainly not a normal customer, but he is not an on the books employee.

The pictures were provided by Josh (BFL Employee), showing a prototype, hashing just a few hours and posted just after the deadline. The "device" was still at BFL labs (ie. Not shipped), Luke appears to operate the computer remotely.


#Point 3

The device does hash, but the 75% requirement being met doesn't matter as it doesn't meet it or doesn't apply. It hashes at about 24-25Gh/s, Since either it's a SC single (75% of 40Gh/s is 30Gh/s) and it doesn't meet the requirement or it's a Little SC single and it doesn't count as one of the original 3.


Summary

It was ruled as a draw by BoB, even though it clearly was not. They failed at every point. So It was "True", 'BFL would not ship'.

Further more, it was clearly stated no commission would be taken, but I've already seen reports that people are indeed being hit with one.
BoB made a bad decision too quickly, on one of the hottest discussions in bitcoin for a long time now (which also had a bet on) and instead of investigating properly, just pulled out the Draw card instead. It was so hotly debated, not because it being close true/false situation, but because BFL and the BFL supporters were actually trying to steal a win at the last minute. It appears they succeeded in some small way, and BoB helped them.
If the reports of commissions actually still being taken are true, BoB has managed to take a cut from both sides in this rather large bet.

Those directly associated with BoB deserve a scammer tag.
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:16:40 PM
 #43

Sorry.... I had to..... could not resist....



Even BFLs house and garden publication "Bitcoin Magazine" does no longer talk about the thing having been shipped.

Here's how the article about Luke's device broke and is as of this moment still referenced in Google's Index.



Note how it said "he received the first Butterfly Labs ASIC to reach the hands of consumers."

Now go to one of these URLs like this one: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/category/technical/

and you will see how the text has been changed to "that a prototypes Butterfly Labs ASIC is now hashing".

tl;dr - not even the retard-o-zine will acknowledge this as a shipment.

PS: Also note how the articles former title "Bitcoin developer receives first Butterfly Labs ASIC"
as evidenced in the article url http://bitcoinmagazine.com/bitcoin-developer-receives-first-butterfly-labs-asic/
has been changed to "Bitcoin developer Confirms Butterfly Labs ASIC"
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:25:08 PM
 #44

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.

I find it strange that you have put a bet on something that you find ambiguous afterwards.
Zotia
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 501


TokenUnion-Get Rewarded for Holding Crypto


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:28:51 PM
 #45

Did coinjedi take part in this bet?


That is the only way that his actions would make any sense.


▄████████████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████████
███████                ██████
███████                ██████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄███████
███████▀▀▀▀██    ██▀▀▀▀███████
███████    ██    ██    ███████
███████    ██    ██    ███████
███████    ██    ██    ███████
███████    ██    ██    ███████
███████    ██    ██    ███████
███████    ▀██▄▄██▀    ███████
███████▄     ▀▀▀▀     ▄███████
████████▄            ▄████████
██████████▄▄      ▄▄██████████
██████████████████████████████
▀████████████████████████████▀
.
.TokenUnion.










Reinventing Savings via Cryptoeconomically
Incentivized Holding

    ████▄▄▄
   ██  ▀▀▀████▄▄▄
   ██        ▀▀▀███▄
  ██     ▄██▄     ██
  ██     ▀██▀     ██
 ██   ███▄▄▄     ██
 ██     ▀▀▀███   ██
██   ███▄▄▄     ██
██     ▀▀▀███   ██
▀███▄▄▄        ██
   ▀▀▀████▄▄▄  ██
         ▀▀▀████
WP
■  Telegram     ■  Github
            ■  Reddit     ■  Twitter
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:37:32 PM
 #46

Did coinjedi take part in this bet?

That is the only way that his actions would make any sense.
That wouldn't make sense, but it would make sense if the losing side offered to pay more for cancellation of the bet than the value of the lost commissions. The loss of public image might not be worth it by coinjedi in the long run though.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:42:46 PM
 #47

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Nancarrow
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 492
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:45:46 PM
 #48

GIVE THEYMOS A SCAMMER TAG!!!!! BE HONEST, HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING YOU, THEYMOS???

J/k.

If I've said anything amusing and/or informative and you're feeling generous:
1GNJq39NYtf7cn2QFZZuP5vmC1mTs63rEW
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:46:08 PM
 #49

This is very funy because....

Quote
BitBet is owned by Mircea Popescu I believe, also known as MPOE-PR on BitcoinTalk (who pretends to be a female (Hannah Wiggins)). He's a known troll and repeated liar and I suspect that bet is his... I've repeatedly called out his lies on Bitcointalk and he's a sad panda that no one will listen to his constant stream of false information... so he's taken to try and convince people that BFL is a scam. Honestly, I wouldn't trust BitBet unless someone can show that it's not owned by Mircea Popescu who would likely not payout the 250 BTC when he loses the bet.

Please be advised, I have not actually verified that Bitbet is owned or not owned by Mircea Popescu personally, I'm just going off third party information... so do your own due diligence I will be doing my own when I have enough time, but I wanted to warn people in the interim.

Story here being, Inaba had a little pump scheme going with the betsofbitco.in muppets to make fake "anti" bets (much like Meni Rosenfeld's Pirate-propping pseudo-"short" assets). Easy money for them: either win or push the bet, all the while benefiting from the false image of fake favorable odds (real easy to bet fiddy billion on delivering when you know you'll never lose). This is casebook pumping, and when (not if!) BFL ends up on trial this specifically will translate into moar years.

In the meanwhile, certainly this calls for a scammer tags for both Inaba and coinjedi.

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.

You're too irrelevant to be contacted. Kindly go look for Taaki somewhere in the sticks.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Isokivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000


Items flashing here available at btctrinkets.com


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 12:46:31 PM
 #50

I wont be using this service anymore.

Bitcoin trinkets now on my online store: btc trinkets.com <- Bitcoin Tiepins, cufflinks, lapel pins, keychains, card holders and challenge coins.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:48:15 PM
 #51

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.

How unambiguous does a bet need to be before you decide its unambiguous?
The bet refers to a device as anounced in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=87934.msg966886#msg966886
It is quite clear that the device in the photos Luke posted is not what is defined as a device in the advertisements on BFLs webpage. So in fact no device as defined by the bet was demonstrated to be in hands of a non-BFL employed customer before 01 april.
So at least one term of the bet was not met.
This in not ambiguous!

You have not examined this carefully and your decision is flawed.
So please give some better reason for your decision than: "We have carefully examined both sides of the argument. "
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:50:53 PM
 #52

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.
So if they decide bets based on who pays them the most under the table, would they still not be tagged as a scammer?

Scammer tags here truly are useless.
miter_myles
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
 #53

+1

BTC - 1D7g5395bs7idApTx1KTXrfDW7JUgzx6Z5
LTC - LVFukQnCWUimBxZuXKqTVKy1L2Jb8kZasL
hanti
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 01:08:39 PM
 #54

+1 but maybe tag he is a scammer is too harsh
best would be not using this site anymore

BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 01:13:21 PM
Last edit: April 03, 2013, 01:32:43 PM by BadBear
 #55

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.
So if they decide bets based on who pays them the most under the table, would they still not be tagged as a scammer?

Scammer tags here truly are useless.

I wonder what's more useless, scammer tags or posters with arguments that consist entirely of strawman fallacies?

GO!

Edit: I'm just kidding, it's obviously you.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 01:36:23 PM
 #56

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.
Technicaly your right but isn't the tag there to warn others from a scammer? Since we have one here why is this one given a special right ......

Is there a definition or a bill that states what is a scammer or are you mods (bitcoin org owners) deciding per incident?

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 02:07:52 PM
 #57

Technicaly your right but isn't the tag there to warn others from a scammer? Since we have one here why is this one given a special right ......

Is there a definition or a bill that states what is a scammer or are you mods (bitcoin org owners) deciding per incident?

They're winging it, pretty much.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
dacoinminster
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1024


Rational Exuberance


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 02:48:06 PM
 #58

-1 on scammer tag. That's not what the scammer tag is for, and it's incredibly silly to expect forum moderators to intervene in this situation. If you don't like how coinjedi runs his betting site, you are free to choose a different one.

Disclaimer: I use betsofbitcoin occasionally, but I don't have anything at stake for this bet.

BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 03:11:41 PM
 #59

-1 on scammer tag. That's not what the scammer tag is for, and it's incredibly silly to expect forum moderators to intervene in this situation. If you don't like how coinjedi runs his betting site, you are free to choose a different one.

Disclaimer: I use betsofbitcoin occasionally, but I don't have anything at stake for this bet.
Then some of the scammer tags given here would apply to this .... MNW, Pirate, Cablepair...etc.

This is why we need a comitee or sorts (at least a Bill of "rights") to hand out tags, not mods on the loose :/ ?
(no offense)

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 03:29:07 PM
 #60

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

<with all due respect, theymos>

Example only---> Even if it's proven that payola is accepted to influence the outcome of a bet?

Also, is there a screenshot of the Bitcoin Magazine article prior to the changes? Is there an editor note of such changes? I'm just asking here, but find this worrisome, for I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag. This will sadden me greatly.

~Bruno K~

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 03:34:04 PM
 #61


Also, is there a screenshot of the Bitcoin Magazine article prior to the changes? Is there an editor note of such changes? I'm just asking here, but find this worrisome, for I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag. This will sadden me greatly.

~Bruno K~

No editor note. Proof is in the Google index and the article title (a word press article URL is built from the articles title; if the article title is changed later, the url stays the same)
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 03:39:48 PM
 #62

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.
So if they decide bets based on who pays them the most under the table, would they still not be tagged as a scammer?

Scammer tags here truly are useless.

Exactly what I just penned a couple posts above this one, for I recognized the same thing prior to reading your post, Beepbob.

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
jwzguy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 03:55:36 PM
 #63

People need to stop turning to this forum's scammer tag as the end-all be-all of Bitcoin justice.

BoB screwed up big time, there's no doubt. But they're not trying to scam anyone, or they wouldn't have refunded the bet money. A scammer tag here won't accomplish anything constructive.

Instead, when a betting site proves that they are doing a poor job, boycott them, give your business to the competition. It's that simple.
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 03:59:55 PM
 #64


Also, is there a screenshot of the Bitcoin Magazine article prior to the changes? Is there an editor note of such changes? I'm just asking here, but find this worrisome, for I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag. This will sadden me greatly.

~Bruno K~

No editor note. Proof is in the Google index and the article title (a word press article URL is built from the articles title; if the article title is changed later, the url stays the same)

Got it!



People need to stop turning to this forum's scammer tag as the end-all be-all of Bitcoin justice.

BoB screwed up big time, there's no doubt. But they're not trying to scam anyone, or they wouldn't have refunded the bet money. A scammer tag here won't accomplish anything constructive.

Instead, when a betting site proves that they are doing a poor job, boycott them, give your business to the competition. It's that simple.


+1

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 04:09:07 PM
 #65

People need to stop turning to this forum's scammer tag as the end-all be-all of Bitcoin justice.

Blasphemy!

KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 04:31:05 PM
 #66

People need to stop turning to this forum's scammer tag as the end-all be-all of Bitcoin justice.

BoB screwed up big time, there's no doubt. But they're not trying to scam anyone, or they wouldn't have refunded the bet money. A scammer tag here won't accomplish anything constructive.

Instead, when a betting site proves that they are doing a poor job, boycott them, give your business to the competition. It's that simple.



This is silly reasoning.

By ruling the bet a push and returning the money, they can claim that this happened due to incompetence.  Coinjedi has already begun to plead incompetence.  He can understand why we may think he did a very poor job.  This is what corrupt officials always fall back on.  The referee who cheated is not going to admit to taking bribes, he'll just apologize for having such an off day.

Furthermore, it's already been pointed out that the decision they rendered doesn't point to incompetence but to simple corruption.  If you were watching a soccer game and an embarrassed looking referee disallowed 5 clear goals all against one team, would you assume it was some kind of cosmic fluke or would you reason that, given the amount of money involved on the outcome of the match, the game was fixed?

The BFL backers lost the bet.  There is no real controversy in that regard.  The BFL side failed on several different points.  Luke Jr. is working for BFL, the March 31 deadline was missed, the "product" shown is a prototype that is still being worked on and does not even have a case, the prototype was never shipped anywhere, the product Luke Jr. claims to have ordered did not even exist at the time the bet was consumated and was not among the 3 specific products mentioned...  I can go on, but there is no point.  I am not foolish enough to believe that any honest, intelligent person who is paying attention thinks that there was ambiguity.  There was none.  It was an open and shut case.  There is only one reasonable explanation for how and why this happened, and that is that betsofbitco.in had a stake in the outcome.

By your reasoning, even if we believe that an escrow or arbitrator is intentionally making bad decisions, we should not cry "theft" but should just shake our head and say "oh well, I guess I went with the wrong site".  That is not a reasonable position to take.  Think about this a little more seriously.
mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 04:46:38 PM
 #67

By your reasoning, even if we believe that an escrow or arbitrator is intentionally making bad decisions, we should not cry "theft" but should just shake our head and say "oh well, I guess I went with the wrong site".  That is not a reasonable position to take.  Think about this a little more seriously.

The problem is that BoB is not an escrow.
It is a gambling site.
As it turns out, hoping for a fair judgement of the betting is a gamble in its own right.
jwzguy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 04:57:37 PM
 #68

People need to stop turning to this forum's scammer tag as the end-all be-all of Bitcoin justice.

BoB screwed up big time, there's no doubt. But they're not trying to scam anyone, or they wouldn't have refunded the bet money. A scammer tag here won't accomplish anything constructive.

Instead, when a betting site proves that they are doing a poor job, boycott them, give your business to the competition. It's that simple.



This is silly reasoning.

By ruling the bet a push and returning the money, they can claim that this happened due to incompetence.  Coinjedi has already begun to plead incompetence.  He can understand why we may think he did a very poor job.  This is what corrupt officials always fall back on.  The referee who cheated is not going to admit to taking bribes, he'll just apologize for having such an off day.

Furthermore, it's already been pointed out that the decision they rendered doesn't point to incompetence but to simple corruption.  If you were watching a soccer game and an embarrassed looking referee disallowed 5 clear goals all against one team, would you assume it was some kind of cosmic fluke or would you reason that, given the amount of money involved on the outcome of the match, the game was fixed?

The BFL backers lost the bet.  There is no real controversy in that regard.  The BFL side failed on several different points.  Luke Jr. is working for BFL, the March 31 deadline was missed, the "product" shown is a prototype that is still being worked on and does not even have a case, the prototype was never shipped anywhere, the product Luke Jr. claims to have ordered did not even exist at the time the bet was consumated and was not among the 3 specific products mentioned...  I can go on, but there is no point.  I am not foolish enough to believe that any honest, intelligent person who is paying attention thinks that there was ambiguity.  There was none.  It was an open and shut case.  There is only one reasonable explanation for how and why this happened, and that is that betsofbitco.in had a stake in the outcome.

By your reasoning, even if we believe that an escrow or arbitrator is intentionally making bad decisions, we should not cry "theft" but should just shake our head and say "oh well, I guess I went with the wrong site".  That is not a reasonable position to take.  Think about this a little more seriously.

If you'd said they ruled for the other side of the bet, I'd agree. But they didn't. They said they accepted a bet that turned out to be too ambiguous to make a judgement and canceled it. Your examples don't make any sense in this case. And your "only one reasonable explanation" is horseshit. It's perfectly reasonable that the judge felt he couldn't make a fair decision. I disagree with him, but by using their site you are agreeing to let him make that decision.

What's silly is you thinking that getting a scammer tag here is constructive. Sorry, that's not going to do a goddamn thing. Use another site that you think deserves trust. The scammer tag was not meant to function as the BBB of the Bitcoin world. If you have a problem with that, the door's over there.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 05:29:10 PM
 #69

I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag.

You're like the only one.

But they're not trying to scam anyone, or they wouldn't have refunded the bet money

This is pretty much an argument to ignorance. If you gamble, lose, and refund you've in fact defrauded the winner of his winnings. That this point is usually lost on people who don't gamble doesn't make it any less valid, just like the fact that many people don't know that antibiotics don't help against viruses doesn't make antibiotics any more effective against viruses.

Instead, when a betting site proves that they are doing a poor job, boycott them, give your business to the competition. It's that simple.

The problem here is that the so-called betting site had an undisclosed relationship with the so-called miner producer to pump their inexistent ASIC. The scam is plainly "come bet that you'll deliver, then would-be buyers will think the odds are still there, then they'll buy, then when you don't deliver we'll refund". This is a scam.

The BFL backers lost the bet.  There is no real controversy in that regard.  The BFL side failed on several different points.  Luke Jr. is working for BFL, the March 31 deadline was missed, the "product" shown is a prototype that is still being worked on and does not even have a case, the prototype was never shipped anywhere, the product Luke Jr. claims to have ordered did not even exist at the time the bet was consumated and was not among the 3 specific products mentioned...  I can go on, but there is no point.  I am not foolish enough to believe that any honest, intelligent person who is paying attention thinks that there was ambiguity.  There was none.  It was an open and shut case.  There is only one reasonable explanation for how and why this happened, and that is that betsofbitco.in had a stake in the outcome.

Absolutely correct.

Possibly not worth the mention that Luke-jr is currently Bitcoin's chief scumbag. The list of fraudulent, dishonest, scammy shit he's pulled so far is perhaps worthy of a (stickied) thread itself. It's beyond me how people who intend to earn their bread by their reputation still associate with him, but I hope it's obvious that in a few years "has worked with Luke-jr" will be the reason resumes are turned down. Yes Gavin, I am talking to you.

If you'd said they ruled for the other side of the bet, I'd agree. But they didn't. They said they accepted a bet that turned out to be too ambiguous to make a judgement and canceled it

This is Joel Katz level coolaid right here. First off, your agreement carries no value in this conversation, and as such it's not a bargain chip. Second off, what, were they in mutual error? Get off.

If you have a problem with that, the door's over there.

Seriously, who are you and when did you get a voice? Fuckwit.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:19:58 PM
 #70

Do I understand it right that bob is calling a draw here because the bet wasn't clear enough? (Statement and agreements etc)

Aren't they supposed to check that first when they take the bet? .... It seems that they took it, didn't bother about the terms and later panicked their way out by calling a draw?

Thd whole thing smells weird :/

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:33:03 PM
 #71

Do I understand it right that bob is calling a draw here because the bet wasn't clear enough? (Statement and agreements etc)

Aren't they supposed to check that first when they take the bet? .... It seems that they took it, didn't bother about the terms and later panicked their way out by calling a draw?

Thd whole thing smells weird :/

It magically only became ambiguous after BFL failed to meet its deadline.

Two days earlier it wasn't ambiguous yet.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:39:10 PM
 #72

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:45:34 PM
 #73

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...
Not the same bet. betsofbitco.in allowed for +/- 25% on hashrate (which was met), but the competitior's bet only allowed +/- 10% (which was not met).

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 06:50:58 PM
 #74

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...
Not the same bet. betsofbitco.in allowed for +/- 25% on hashrate (which was met), but the competitior's bet only allowed +/- 10% (which was not met).

Same clear outcome.
A dev board is not a device as defined by the bet.
axus
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 07:06:11 PM
 #75

I don't think a Draw is out of line.  If you carefully read the terms of the bet, it's in BFL's favor except for the time requirement (before April 1).  I think the post was made before April 1 on the US West Coast, and after April 1 East Coast time.  They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 07:09:49 PM
 #76

I don't think a Draw is out of line.  If you carefully read the terms of the bet, it's in BFL's favor except for the time requirement (before April 1).  I think the post was made before April 1 on the US West Coast, and after April 1 East Coast time.  They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.

How was the post credible - the pictures were taking by Josh (and employee) and sent to Luke (an eployee) - hell for all we know it might be a FPGA rig or what not. How does it imply shipping?
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 07:14:35 PM
 #77

I don't think a Draw is out of line.  If you carefully read the terms of the bet, it's in BFL's favor except for the time requirement (before April 1).  I think the post was made before April 1 on the US West Coast, and after April 1 East Coast time.  They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.

How was the post credible - the pictures were taking by Josh (and employee) and sent to Luke (an eployee) - hell for all we know it might be a FPGA rig or what not. How does it imply shipping?

It doesn't...it implies scamming. The only thing BFL is good for. Off the charts fail from BFL & BOB.

greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 07:46:20 PM
 #78

I don't think a Draw is out of line.  If you carefully read the terms of the bet,

If you carefully read the terms of the bet,

carefully read the terms

See, this right here? This? This is Atlas type stuff. "Reading the terms carefully" to arrive at some convoluted definition of the bet that the other 95% of the population (aka sane people) can only look at in stark bewilderment and disdain. Do you want to end up like Atlas? A burned out ideas-man with nary an accomplishment to himself but "building an IKEA desk once".


(btw, Atlas, you still owe me 3 Bitcoins or something)
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 07:57:02 PM
 #79

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...
Not the same bet. betsofbitco.in allowed for +/- 25% on hashrate (which was met), but the competitior's bet only allowed +/- 10% (which was not met).

Winning by technicality.... Where did I hear that last time;)

-+25% of what product may I ask?!

MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 08:14:21 PM
 #80

(btw, Atlas, you still owe me 3 Bitcoins or something)

By now that'd be enough to pay for Banya's Armani suit.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 08:16:47 PM
 #81

(btw, Atlas, you still owe me 3 Bitcoins or something)

By now that'd be enough to pay for Banya's Armani suit.

LOL

Hey, you were supposed to buy me lunch! A real lunch, not a soup and sandwich!

FreshJR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 65
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 08:17:46 PM
 #82

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...
Not the same bet. betsofbitco.in allowed for +/- 25% on hashrate (which was met), but the competitior's bet only allowed +/- 10% (which was not met).

+-25% of what product mentioned In the bet you scamming piece of shit?  
Protip: the products were listed in the yahoo article mentioned in the bet. 

I guess the math portion of your miner is still everything you stole from cgminer. Fuck off
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
 #83

As for Luke - By siding with the losing side on this with his supposedly-clever word-playing, he comes off, at the very least, as a major a bull***t artist. It's the same kind of bull***t artistry I got used to seeing from BFL over the time I've been following them since I ordered (and now - waiting for my refund).

Whether or not he's an actual scammer, and frankly, it looks like he is, it completely blows any remaining credibility this so-called betting service ever had.  Nobody who intends their bets to be honored will ever place a bet again with this ripoff operation.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 1039


View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:11:46 PM
 #84

From what I'm hearing a certain competitor to betsofbitco.in didn't have any problems in determining a clear outcome to the same bet...
betsofbitco.in allowed for +/- 25% on hashrate (which was met)

Which product are you referring to? The bet clearly specified 3 products. Were you testing a Jalapeno?

http://news.yahoo.com/butterfly-labs-announces-next-generation-asic-lineup-054626776.html

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149

2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299

3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

Buy & Hold
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 03, 2013, 09:17:04 PM
 #85

Agree, the website and the pusher of the site should have a scammer tag.


.
                                    ▄███▄
                                    █████▄
            ▄███▄                  ▄████▀██▄▄
            █████▄                ██▀      ▀██▄
            ▀███▀██▄▄            ██▀         ▀██▄████▄                 ▄███▄
                   ▀▀██▄▄       ██▀            ▀██████▄               ▄█████
                       ▀▀██▄▄█████▄             ▀████▀██▄▄          ▄██▀███▀
                           ▀███████               ██   ▀▀███▄    ▄██▀▀
                           ▄███████▄              ██       ▀███▄██▀
▄███▄                    ▄██▀▀███▀▀██▄▄           ██          ▀██▄
██████▄▄              ▄▄██▀          ▀██▄         ██            ▀██▄
▀███▀ ▀▀██▄▄   ▄▄████████              ▀▀██▄      ██              ▀█▄
          ▀▀██▄█████████▌                 ▀██▄▄   ██               ▀██
             ▐██████████                    ▀████████▄               ██▄
              ██████████▄                     ▐███████▄               ████▄
             ▄█████████▀██▄▄ ▄▄▄▄      ▄▄▄▄████████████               █████
            ▄██▀ ▀▀▀▀    ▀▀███████▄████▀▀▀▀▀    ████████▄              ▀▀▀
           ▄██              ██████▀               ▀▀▀▀ ▀██▄
        ▄████               ▀████▀                       ▀████▄
        █████                                              ████
         ▀▀▀                                                ▀▀
.
ShareMeAll
●    A ONE-STOP    ―――――――――――――――   ●  ●  ●  ●
OMarketplace For Sharing EverythingO
.
.
▄▄████████▄▄
▄████████████████▄
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀  █████
████████████▀▀      ██████
▐████████▀▀   ▄▄     ██████▌
▐████▀▀    ▄█▀▀     ███████▌
▐████████ █▀        ███████▌
████████ █ ▄███▄   ███████
████████████████▄▄██████
▀████████████████████▀
▀████████████████▀
▀▀████████▀▀
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 09:47:29 PM
 #86

There really is no ambiguity.  The only issue is how many of the points listed in the bet were not met.  It is clear to anyone reasonable the TERMS of shipping were not met, the timeframe was not met and the no employee clause was not met. 

It is great news that BFL has a working prototype of some form, but this does not meet the clearly stated terms of the bet. 

It takes a LONG TIME to build up a reputation for a betting site.  I really did like BoB and was a (small time) customer there.  I will no longer bet there. This is a clear example that they make up the rules as they go along.  Will a game be called a tie because it was close next? 

That all being said, no scammer tag vote here.  The mods can go after real scammers but they should not be the judge of the quality of a betting site unless the betting site actually steals customer money.  And even under that this is a close call for me, because not paying out on a clearly stated bet is pretty close to stealing from the winner. 

Transisto
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2013, 09:49:20 PM
Last edit: April 04, 2013, 07:25:49 AM by Transisto
 #87

I had no stake in this bet ... but
Some have lost so much to BFL already and used this to hedge their purchase.

The device is arguably NOT A DEVICE, and LukeJR is arguably NOT A CUSTOMER.

Fail, Fail and ...
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
FAIL !
How retarded do you have to be to confuse 75% of advertised hashrate with ~50% ?

Rest In Peace betsofbitco.in we've lost enough time with you.
nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 12:01:21 AM
 #88

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.
So if they decide bets based on who pays them the most under the table, would they still not be tagged as a scammer?

Scammer tags here truly are useless.

Oh no! The tag doesn't apply to every possible situation that you don't like! It must be useless.
nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 12:15:37 AM
 #89

This is pretty much an argument to ignorance. If you gamble, lose, and refund

This is pretty much an argument to what the fuck. You're describing the situation as if the judge and the betters were the same person, who refunded themself when they lost.
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2013, 02:53:55 AM
 #90

I have the utmost respect for the crew running the mag.

You're like the only one.

<snip>


I'm battin' a 1000 then, for you won't believe how high I rated InstaWallet.

(took no offense to your post, and do respect you (seriously))

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2013, 03:10:24 AM
 #91

I had no stake in this bet ... but
Some have lost so much to BFL already and used this to hedge their purchase.

<snip>


I'm having a very bad day which is rare for me, so forgive my tone, but...

If I understand correctly that MNW was given the tag because people hedged their position against Pirate and lost, then the same exact consideration would apply here if only I person (though possibly more) lost out due to them hedging their position.

On that note, I don't believe BoB deserves a scammer tag for the same exact reason now that MNW deserved one, for both situations are identical.

Feel free to set my thinking straight on this particular aspect, for I'm not really in the right state of mind right now due to IW going down. And what the fuck is going on over at Mt. Gox? Is day just a dream, or are aliens probing me--again?

~Bruno K~

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 04:15:33 AM
 #92

BoB, the fake betting site, basically did exactly what MNW did, for which he got a scammer tag.

If one side of the bet had come in, in favor of BFL, then they'd have paid out.

When the other side came in, clearly and unambiguously, they said ha ha, just kidding.  That's a scam.
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 06:04:40 AM
 #93

They should really clarify that all times refer to GMT unless otherwise specified.

http://betsofbitco.in/help

In "What is the difference between deadline and event date?"

All dates refer to end of day Eastern Time.

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 06:19:45 AM
 #94

I'm battin' a 1000 then, for you won't believe how high I rated InstaWallet.

(took no offense to your post, and do respect you (seriously))

That's okay, because while I had no clue wtf instawallet even is, I did say a few times that the bitcoin-central thing is pretty much the only trustable exchange. Of course I was going on the legal stuff, but still.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
TradeFortress 🏕
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1023


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 06:29:34 AM
 #95

BoB, the fake betting site, basically did exactly what MNW did, for which he got a scammer tag.

If one side of the bet had come in, in favor of BFL, then they'd have paid out.

When the other side came in, clearly and unambiguously, they said ha ha, just kidding.  That's a scam.
I'm not going to give Matthew N. Wright a scammer tag. By betting in his game, you agree that he will decide the outcome.
Transisto
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1732
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
April 04, 2013, 07:21:59 AM
 #96

I think the line between being a scammer and willfully being a clueless moron has been crossed often enough in bitcoinland.

We are talking of more than 70 000$ wagered... with little to no thoughtful process given on the outcome.


Scammer tag please.


And +1 to Genjix , Phantomcircuit and Zhougon while at it.
Deprived
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 08:05:30 AM
 #97

Nothing wrong with saying the bet was badly worded and couldn't be resolved.

So long as both sides get paid out as though they won.  Then it would be a great gesture from the site - to pay both sides (not refund, pay out in full) when BFL clearly didn't deliver.  If the site thinks THEY screwed up by offering a flawed bet then, rather obviously, the site should be the one to absorb any financial loss resulting from it.

Obviously what they've actually done is either a scam or gross incompetence.  The reasons why have already been clearly detailed - which (scam or incompetence) is anyone's guess.  I'd tend towards shipping a scammer tag then let them prove they really ARE That stupid to get it removed.
phelix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1005


nmc:id/phelix


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 08:47:43 AM
 #98

I had no stake in this bet ... but
Some have lost so much to BFL already and used this to hedge their purchase.

The device is arguably NOT A DEVICE, and LukeJR is arguably NOT A CUSTOMER.

Fail, Fail and ...
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
FAIL !
How retarded do you have to be to confuse 75% of advertised hashrate with ~50% ?

Rest In Peace betsofbitco.in we've lost enough time with you.
this.

also: ship - transitive verb -  "to cause to be transported"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship

blockchained.com ■ bitcointalk top posts
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 10:06:24 AM
 #99

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.

Somehow i think you you just signed your service to death.....


MNW got a "Scammer Tag" for weaseling out of his (stupid joke ass bet that none should have taken serious in the first place....jm2BTC) and now your service is doing the same thing?!




nathanrees19
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 10:57:35 AM
 #100

BoB, the fake betting site

They disagree with me on one decision, therefore it's a fake betting site.

basically did exactly what MNW did

The circumstances were completely different, but I feel just as upset, therefore it's exactly the same.
Kelticfox
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 535
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 04:49:23 PM
 #101

Well this will be interesting.... Lets see if BoB try to Push this one

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1352

Quote
Butterfly Labs Will Ship Before Mid-April 2013
Butterfly Labs (BFL_Josh) have stated that the first shipment will be dispatched before the last week of March 2013.

To qualify as a 'Agree', a Butterfly Labs customer must acknowledge receipt of an ASIC unit, test it and have it perform within advertised specifications by the 14th April 2013. The post confirming the status has to be on either BitcoinTalk or Butterfly Labs forums with conclusive evidence (video etc)

All Butterfly Labs employees or affiliates are discounted.

1: Although 1 person has 'received' a BFL ASIC (Luke-Jr) he is an affiliate at this point in time (as a developer working on software for the ASICs).

2: "Must perform within advertised specifications"..... well BFL changed the advertised specs today (https://products.butterflylabs.com/ upping the price whilst dropping the specs..... classy!).

3. At the time of the bet opening it was not known that the power consumption was over the limit (another failure for advertised specs).


I will be interested to know if a Push will be declared.

Veni, Vidi, Cidere, Prenda In Gen, Interlitum Verlgo Stipes, Dissiptum.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 04:52:31 PM
 #102

Well this will be interesting.... Lets see if BoB try to Push this one

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1352

Quote
Butterfly Labs Will Ship Before Mid-April 2013
Butterfly Labs (BFL_Josh) have stated that the first shipment will be dispatched before the last week of March 2013.

To qualify as a 'Agree', a Butterfly Labs customer must acknowledge receipt of an ASIC unit, test it and have it perform within advertised specifications by the 14th April 2013. The post confirming the status has to be on either BitcoinTalk or Butterfly Labs forums with conclusive evidence (video etc)

All Butterfly Labs employees or affiliates are discounted.

1: Although 1 person has 'received' a BFL ASIC (Luke-Jr) he is an affiliate at this point in time (as a developer working on software for the ASICs).

2: "Must perform within advertised specifications"..... well BFL changed the advertised specs today (https://products.butterflylabs.com/ upping the price whilst dropping the specs..... classy!).

3. At the time of the bet opening it was not known that the power consumption was over the limit (another failure for advertised specs).


I will be interested to know if a Push will be declared.
This bet is clearly already lost for the pro-BFL side. There is no way they're meeting advertised specs exactly, and they're current schedule says late April.

Kelticfox
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 535
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 06:04:36 PM
 #103

This bet is clearly already lost for the pro-BFL side. There is no way they're meeting advertised specs exactly, and they're current schedule says late April.

Agreed. Now its just a waiting game to see what happens.

Veni, Vidi, Cidere, Prenda In Gen, Interlitum Verlgo Stipes, Dissiptum.
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 06:26:31 PM
 #104

This bet is clearly already lost for the pro-BFL side. There is no way they're meeting advertised specs exactly, and they're current schedule says late April.

Agreed, but that was true of the last bet as well. Yet some scammy actions by yourself, inblahblah, and BOB and tada...DRAW!

darkmule
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 06:45:39 PM
 #105

The circumstances were completely different, but I feel just as upset, therefore it's exactly the same.

I'm not upset by either, just commenting on them.

I didn't bet with MNW, and I didn't bet on your scam site, either.
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 07:23:00 PM
 #106

Well this will be interesting.... Lets see if BoB try to Push this one

http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1352

Quote
Butterfly Labs Will Ship Before Mid-April 2013
Butterfly Labs (BFL_Josh) have stated that the first shipment will be dispatched before the last week of March 2013.

To qualify as a 'Agree', a Butterfly Labs customer must acknowledge receipt of an ASIC unit, test it and have it perform within advertised specifications by the 14th April 2013. The post confirming the status has to be on either BitcoinTalk or Butterfly Labs forums with conclusive evidence (video etc)

All Butterfly Labs employees or affiliates are discounted.

1: Although 1 person has 'received' a BFL ASIC (Luke-Jr) he is an affiliate at this point in time (as a developer working on software for the ASICs).

2: "Must perform within advertised specifications"..... well BFL changed the advertised specs today (https://products.butterflylabs.com/ upping the price whilst dropping the specs..... classy!).

3. At the time of the bet opening it was not known that the power consumption was over the limit (another failure for advertised specs).


I will be interested to know if a Push will be declared.

I submit that paying out or not paying out on a 4 BTC bet has no relevance when discussing a 500 BTC scam.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
ziomik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1004


https://blog.comprarebitcoin.info


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2013, 07:39:06 PM
 #107

I bet. I won but have undone me obviously missed. They were fools and ridiculous to me have closed. Fuck them and their site of betting.

+1

"Se domani senti due massaie che parlano di bitcoin tra di loro dal macellaio, forse e' il momento di vendere.. se pero' le sentirai fra 10 anni forse staranno solo pagando il conto" GBianchi
---- +++ ----
https://www.comprarebitcoin.info | https://blog.comprarebitcoin.info | https://www.bitcoinitalia.com
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 07:42:45 PM
 #108

I bet. I won but have undone me obviously missed. They were fools and ridiculous to me have closed. Fuck them and their site of betting.

Well said! ...I think...

xan_The_Dragon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


I AM A DRAGON


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 07:43:42 PM
 #109

+1 scammertag for coinjedi
-1 scammer tag for bets of bitcoin, i bad admin does not = bad company however if bets of bitcoin stands behind coinjedi i wll change my vote to +1 scammer tag for BoB

MfFMEpgL5Ma9C2yw6iSsSX4QcbSVzjm6iK
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2013, 07:56:03 PM
 #110

I had no stake in this bet ... but

This
The device is arguably NOT A DEVICE, and LukeJR is arguably NOT A CUSTOMER.
Fail, Fail and ...
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
FAIL !

And this:
Quote
If I understand correctly that MNW was given the tag because people hedged their position against Pirate and lost, then the same exact consideration would apply here if only I person (though possibly more) lost out due to them hedging their position.

+1, or remove the scammer tag to MNW(EDIT: I didn't know that was already done Shocked)

Quote
Rest In Peace betsofbitco.in we've lost enough time with you.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 09:51:08 PM
 #111

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=165902.0

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 10:00:05 PM
 #112

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?

Yip. That's a bunch of bs. That coin was yours.

BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 10:23:56 PM
 #113

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=165902.0

Definitely your coins. YOU WON THE BET!

+1 Scammer for bob, coinjedi

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 10:24:50 PM
 #114

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.
If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.
Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

• 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]
"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

• 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.
I am in Eastern time.
But this seems like a technicality.

• 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.
Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-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.
More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

• 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.
It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

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.
No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?
I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 10:56:35 PM
 #115

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.
If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.
Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

• 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]
"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

• 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.
I am in Eastern time.
But this seems like a technicality.

• 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.
Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-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.
More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

• 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.
It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

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.
No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?
I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

What a douche.
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 04, 2013, 11:02:03 PM
 #116

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?

I'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 11:03:02 PM
 #117

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.
If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.
Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.

• 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]
"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.

• 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.
I am in Eastern time.
But this seems like a technicality.

• 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.
Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-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.
More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

• 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.
It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.

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.
No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.

I'm feeling cheated and a little butthurt about it.  Wouldn't you?
I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".

What a douche.

More doing a MNW here ...

Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 1039


View Profile
April 04, 2013, 11:30:20 PM
 #118

• 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.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?

Irrelevent. The bet clearly stated the 3 products. BFL did not ship any of them. The 75% hashrate requirement was not met. The bet should have been declared won for this point alone. There's no way you can honestly disagree.

Buy & Hold
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 11:38:38 PM
 #119

Having created the bet, you don't get more authority than other betters, but you do get more responsibility: you can't blame anyone else for poorly defining the bet.
The bet was approved by the site administrators before being opened for betting. "Discovering" that the bet was "ambigious", when it clearly wasn't since it failed numerous criteria, after the outcome had occured, is all BoB's fault. Actually you, Luke-JR, can't actually be much blamed for this point. You're just the soccer player who raises his arm after the other teams scores a goal and claims that it was off side when everyone in the stadium saw that it was nowhere near off side. While your soccer career would be tainted forever due to the association with this referee corruption scandal, it was actually the referee who annulled the goal who was the truly corrupt and will get punished, since your raised arm didn't really influence his decision.

"Shipped" is sadly enough ambiguous by itself due to the precedent set with Avalon's "shipping".
In the case of Avalon, both hand-delivery to customers and turning units over to the bulk shipper, would count as "shipped". However, for the sake of a bet, it would be hard to verify that it was shipped, and what the boxes actually contained, until it actually was in the hands of at least one customer - thus some additional requirements where needed.
The terms of the bet gave it an explicit definition in this case.
The title is part of the definition of the bet, as admitted by BoB. The additional terms just mean that shipping doesn't count until the additional requirements are also met. It had to be shipped, and hashing within certain specs as proven by posting by a non-employee customer on the forum.

By your attempts to finangle the meaning of "shipped", you might just as well have claimed that if BFL took the board on a boat trip on a lake, it was shipped. Likewise that a room full of GPUs counted as an "ASIC".

Look credible enough to me. I don't see how Josh taking the pictures makes them non-credible.
The conditions were there to make sure that the product was actually in the hands of a non-BFL employee, a customer. Since the pictures were taken by a BFL employee, the essence of your post was actually made by BFL Josh.

More technicalities.
Before I got my Little Single, can you honestly say you would have interpreted the bet to exclude it?
It's clearly listed in the conditions. Since you consider both the title and the additional conditions all to be "technicalities" it shows that you're just pretending that the bet doesn't exist. The only thing in there that would be interpreted as a technicality, and actually be a subject of serious debate, is the time zone thing - but since the BFL side already lost the bet on so many other points the time zone question would never need to be decided.

It is perfectly clear (to me, at least) that I am not a BFL employee.
If you want to doubt me, that's your problem - I'm sure you could ask the IRS somehow or another.
If this ever were to make it to court, this might actually be a point that never would need to be argued, due to the more obvious criteria already mentioned (like that it never was even shipped, and that Josh took the photos on the test bench). But if they make it to the employee question, the fact that BFL are paying your expenses and sending BTC to you from their test bench would probably end up with you being considered an employee in the context of this lawsuit where the obvious intent of the non-employee clause is that the evidence is provided by a third party not under the control of BFL. However, if this was a lawsuit between you and BFL about whether or not you have a right to workman's comp, health insurance, etc. then you might have been found to be a contractor doing work for them instead.

No, I wouldn't lose anything if BoB ruled in your favour.
It would just set a precedent for BoB bets being decided on technicalities.
You lost face the second you posted that thread. That BoB decided to use your thread as an excuse for cancelling the bet made your loss of face even more memorable, but as I said that part wasn't really your fault.

I might, but I'd also recognize that the real problem were in the terms of the bet not being "cheatable".
You can never define a bet, contract or a piece of legislation to protect it against people who redefine what the words mean after the fact. The only way to protect against that is to have judges/referees who use a conservative, strict constructionalist interpretation of what was written, rather than the types who redefine what things mean based on their whims.
dirtycat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 456
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 04, 2013, 11:47:56 PM
 #120

+1

Also +1 Luke-jr scammer tag

+1

poop!
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 12:01:13 AM
 #121

I had no stake in this bet ... but

This
The device is arguably NOT A DEVICE, and LukeJR is arguably NOT A CUSTOMER.
Fail, Fail and ...
• The device must achieve at least 75% of its advertised hashrate.
FAIL !

And this:
Quote
If I understand correctly that MNW was given the tag because people hedged their position against Pirate and lost, then the same exact consideration would apply here if only I person (though possibly more) lost out due to them hedging their position.

+1, or remove the scammer tag to MNW(EDIT: I didn't know that was already done Shocked)

Quote
Rest In Peace betsofbitco.in we've lost enough time with you.


What the FUCCKKKKK!!! I demand that he get it back, for now I have nothing, nothing I say, to compare similar scams to.  Grin Grin Grin

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 501


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:03:20 AM
 #122

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:06:44 AM
 #123

I actually considered betting on the true side of this bet several months ago, but I decided not to do so because the wording was far too ambiguous and general. I thought at the time that the bet was created by a BFL supporter and written to be very difficult for them to lose...

Even though it's clear that BFL didn't really "ship", the false side has a very good case according to the bet's conditions. So I think that Bets of Bitcoin did the right thing.

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:08:58 AM
 #124

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

The ads running on the forums mention product specs that BFL is no longer offering.

They've specced down all of their products earlier today.
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:09:30 AM
 #125

Even though it's clear that BFL didn't really "ship", the false side has a very good case according to the bet's conditions. So I think that Bets of Bitcoin did the right thing.
Did you notice that the title is considered part of the conditions of the bet, and the the site operator admits this?
simonk83
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:10:59 AM
 #126

I have nothing to do with this bet, but this whole thing is utter bullshit.    CLEARLY the "true" side should have won, and I can't believe anyone actually has the gall to try and profess otherwise.

Luke, you're full of shit.  You always have been, and I've got no idea why this community continues to put up with you.  The amount of drama you've caused over the years is ridiculous.

BoB, you should be ashamed into being talked into declaring this a draw (you must have been pushed into it as no-one in their right mind would willingly declare this a draw unless they had something to gain, or lose, from it).    This is the end of your site anyway I would have thought, who's going to trust you now?

Everyone else, keep fighting for "justice" to be served here.  Too often we let people get away with scamming on this forum and it's about time that ended.
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:11:39 AM
 #127

Quote
• 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.

Actually, it is pretty clear that Luke is an employee of some sort (contractor, etc.).  Phinnaeus Gage dug up this quote from Luke in the larger thread concerning this scam:

Quote
Butterfly Labs, of course, knows this fact because I have been working with them since early 2012 when their FPGA products were first released.

That's a direct quote from Luke-Jr.  It's also clear that he is being compensated by BFL in various ways and that he is helping them to develop the shitty prototype he claims is a finished product.  He refused to answer questions as to the nature of this compensation.

In the same thread, Luke-Jr. also said that he talks to Josh Zerlan every day between midnight and 2:00 AM.  I really don't know why you guys keep trying to engage with Luke as if he is going to correspond with you in good faith.  It's obvious he is one of the co-conspirators of this scam.

Bogart, that is terrible what happened to you.  You have every right to be furious.  They stole a large sum of money from you.  There is no question it was theft, plain and simple.
simonk83
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:12:03 AM
 #128

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

Where's the profit in that?  Roll Eyes
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:17:27 AM
 #129

Even though it's clear that BFL didn't really "ship", the false side has a very good case according to the bet's conditions. So I think that Bets of Bitcoin did the right thing.
Did you notice that the title is considered part of the conditions of the bet, and the the site operator admits this?



He seems to have missed quite a lot, like Luke being an employee, EST being defined as the relevant timezone on the BoB site, etc.
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 12:25:03 AM
 #130

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

The ads running on the forums mention product specs that BFL is no longer offering.

They've specced down all of their products earlier today.

On it! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167585.0

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
greyhawk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:31:48 AM
 #131

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

The ads running on the forums mention product specs that BFL is no longer offering.

They've specced down all of their products earlier today.

On it! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167585.0

Thanks. I misplaced the term for that tactic somewhere in my brain. "Bait & Switch", "Bait & Switch", "Bait & Switch" Gotta remember that.
creativex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:33:47 AM
 #132

Thanks. I misplaced the term for that tactic somewhere in my brain. "Bait & Switch", "Bait & Switch", "Bait & Switch" Gotta remember that.

I thought it was about fishing with sticks when I first seent it and I was like...dafuq?!? Undecided

Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:39:28 AM
 #133

As someone who was scammer tagged for pulling this exact stunt as a prank in November 2012, I'm actually kind of pissed at Theymos for not following through. I'm also jealous of LukeJr, BFLJosh, BFL, and BetsofBitcoin. They pulled this stunt way better than I did. Bravo. You are far better trolls than I am.

The sad thing is, I didn't even have an escrow and never accepted money. Betsofbitcoin took money from the betters. That's actual scamming.

Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 1039


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:42:55 AM
 #134

I actually considered betting on the true side of this bet several months ago, but I decided not to do so because the wording was far too ambiguous and general. I thought at the time that the bet was created by a BFL supporter and written to be very difficult for them to lose...

Even though it's clear that BFL didn't really "ship", the false side has a very good case according to the bet's conditions. So I think that Bets of Bitcoin did the right thing.

Which product "shipped" reached 75% of the announced hashrate. 1, 2, or 3?

Quote
1)    BitForce SC Jalapeno: a USB powered coffee warmer providing 3.5 GH/s, priced at under $149
2)    BitForce SC Single: a standalone unit providing roughly 40 GH/s, priced at $1,299
3)    BitForce SC Mini Rig: a case & rack mount server providing 1 TH/s, priced at $29,899

Buy & Hold
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3598
Merit: 7354


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 01:43:57 AM
 #135

As someone who was scammer tagged for pulling this exact stunt as a prank in November 2012, I'm actually kind of pissed at Theymos for not following through. I'm also jealous of LukeJr, BFLJosh, BFL, and BetsofBitcoin. They pulled this stunt way better than I did. Bravo. You are far better trolls than I am.

The sad thing is, I didn't even have an escrow and never accepted money. Betsofbitcoin took money from the betters. That's actual scamming.

This is totally different:
- You said that you would get a scammer tag if you didn't pay.
- You scammed on this forum.
- You broke explicit agreements. BoB doesn't have agreements that dictate exactly how they will decide events.

He seems to have missed quite a lot, like Luke being an employee, EST being defined as the relevant timezone on the BoB site, etc.

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.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 501


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 01:45:48 AM
 #136

Shouldn't you at least pull all of the false ad Josh is running right now?

What's false about them? I tend to think that BFL will ship at some point.

The ads running on the forums mention product specs that BFL is no longer offering.

They've specced down all of their products earlier today.
^ THIS
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 04:12:16 AM
 #137

As someone who was scammer tagged for pulling this exact stunt as a prank in November 2012, I'm actually kind of pissed at Theymos for not following through. I'm also jealous of LukeJr, BFLJosh, BFL, and BetsofBitcoin. They pulled this stunt way better than I did. Bravo. You are far better trolls than I am.

The sad thing is, I didn't even have an escrow and never accepted money. Betsofbitcoin took money from the betters. That's actual scamming.

This is totally different:
- You said that you would get a scammer tag if you didn't pay.
- You scammed on this forum.
- You broke explicit agreements. BoB doesn't have agreements that dictate exactly how they will decide events.

He seems to have missed quite a lot, like Luke being an employee, EST being defined as the relevant timezone on the BoB site, etc.

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.

I'm completely boggled that you'd dirty yourself by taking that nonsensical stand. I mean...not say anything, I can see, ignore the whole thing, I can see, propose the losing side had a prayer in Hell!? Weird.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 1039


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 04:48:43 AM
 #138


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.

No, it's not even close. There are numerous points that are clear cut to anyone with half a brain.

I sure wish I could use the ignore button on admins.

Buy & Hold
Dalkore
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1013


Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 05:37:49 AM
 #139

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=165902.0

I think coinjedi should do something.  This isn't right.  That is literally almost $20,000 USD. 

Hosting: Low as $60.00 per KW - Link
Transaction List: jayson3 +5 - ColdHardMetal +3 - Nolo +2 - CoinHoarder +1 - Elxiliath +1 - tymm0 +1 - Johnniewalker +1 - Oscer +1 - Davidj411 +1 - BitCoiner2012 +1 - dstruct2k +1 - Philj +1 - camolist +1 - exahash +1 - Littleshop +1 - Severian +1 - DebitMe +1 - lepenguin +1 - StringTheory +1 - amagimetals +1 - jcoin200 +1 - serp +1 - klintay +1 - -droid- +1 - FlutterPie +1
Dalkore
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1013


Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 05:50:09 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2013, 06:20:54 AM by Dalkore
 #140

Luke-Jr, it really seems you are taking both sides of the fence.   Above on page 6  AND I QUOTE:  "This bet is clearly already lost for the pro-BFL side." BUT THEN "If you were on the True side, then you should be happy with the draw, since it was the False side that should have won.".  Which one is it?  Also, you mention technicalities but then at the same time discount the title like the intent of the wasn't the "shipping" of BFL SC orders to customer(s).  Even you, along with Josh and Coinjedi mention Avalon Batch #1 as a quasi-standard for which people are looking to see the ruling on this bet.   Is it just me or does something not feel right about how people are acting about this that are agreeing with either a "draw/push" or "false/pro-bfl shipped".    

Update:  Edited. I guess this was for another bet that I missed, I really am trying to keep both sides evaluated properly.

Hosting: Low as $60.00 per KW - Link
Transaction List: jayson3 +5 - ColdHardMetal +3 - Nolo +2 - CoinHoarder +1 - Elxiliath +1 - tymm0 +1 - Johnniewalker +1 - Oscer +1 - Davidj411 +1 - BitCoiner2012 +1 - dstruct2k +1 - Philj +1 - camolist +1 - exahash +1 - Littleshop +1 - Severian +1 - DebitMe +1 - lepenguin +1 - StringTheory +1 - amagimetals +1 - jcoin200 +1 - serp +1 - klintay +1 - -droid- +1 - FlutterPie +1
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 06:08:37 AM
 #141

When he said the pro-BFL side certainly lost, he was talking about a different bet that someone had linked to.  It's not the bet in question (which the pro-BFL side also certainly lost, despite what he says haha).
Dalkore
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1013


Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 06:18:02 AM
 #142

BoB doesn't have agreements that dictate exactly how they will decide events.

Does that really matter when "you" are setting policy for scammer tags on BitCoinTalk.org?  In the end, we look to you for guidance on these issues as the referee of our community.  When even the people that would have lost the or "technically" could of have won (Luke, Josh and CoinJedi) are making statements that either admit defeat or set a precedent that makes it seem clear who won, doesn't that just not feel right?  I am not saying the scam tag is the solution but you should atleast give the "true" side more credit than this. 

When you have the person who is being used for evidence to decide the bet giving guidance on how we should interpret things, you know you have gone off course.

Hosting: Low as $60.00 per KW - Link
Transaction List: jayson3 +5 - ColdHardMetal +3 - Nolo +2 - CoinHoarder +1 - Elxiliath +1 - tymm0 +1 - Johnniewalker +1 - Oscer +1 - Davidj411 +1 - BitCoiner2012 +1 - dstruct2k +1 - Philj +1 - camolist +1 - exahash +1 - Littleshop +1 - Severian +1 - DebitMe +1 - lepenguin +1 - StringTheory +1 - amagimetals +1 - jcoin200 +1 - serp +1 - klintay +1 - -droid- +1 - FlutterPie +1
Dalkore
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1013


Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 06:19:25 AM
 #143

When he said the pro-BFL side certainly lost, he was talking about a different bet that someone had linked to.  It's not the bet in question (which the pro-BFL side also certainly lost, despite what he says haha).

Thank you, I am getting confused with this thread, even I am human Smiley.  I will edit it now.

Hosting: Low as $60.00 per KW - Link
Transaction List: jayson3 +5 - ColdHardMetal +3 - Nolo +2 - CoinHoarder +1 - Elxiliath +1 - tymm0 +1 - Johnniewalker +1 - Oscer +1 - Davidj411 +1 - BitCoiner2012 +1 - dstruct2k +1 - Philj +1 - camolist +1 - exahash +1 - Littleshop +1 - Severian +1 - DebitMe +1 - lepenguin +1 - StringTheory +1 - amagimetals +1 - jcoin200 +1 - serp +1 - klintay +1 - -droid- +1 - FlutterPie +1
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 06:34:07 AM
 #144

Since there is so much different opinions on that matter, and since the people that has the power to define events (BoB, theymos) seems against the vast majority:

what about putting this whole debate to http://www.judge.me/ and then everybody accept whatever the outcome will be?

CoinJedi:  would you accept the sentence of judge.me?

Theymos:  would you accept the sentence of judge.me?

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 06:40:52 AM
 #145

Since there is so much different opinions on that matter, and since the people that has the power to define events (BoB, theymos) seems against the vast majority:

what about putting this whole debate to http://www.judge.me/ and then everybody accept whatever the outcome will be?

CoinJedi:  would you accept the sentence of judge.me?

Theymos:  would you accept the sentence of judge.me?

The real question is, will everyone else here?
The fact is, they already agreed to accept the judgement of BetsofBitco.in by participating in the bet.
Yet now that they're unhappy with the outcome, they've decided they won't accept it.
Why should anyone expect them to treat Judge.me in any other way?

BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 06:48:24 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2013, 07:01:58 AM by BadBear
 #146

Since there is so much different opinions on that matter, and since the people that has the power to define events (BoB, theymos) seems against the vast majority:

what about putting this whole debate to http://www.judge.me/ and then everybody accept whatever the outcome will be?

CoinJedi:  would you accept the sentence of judge.me?

Theymos:  would you accept the sentence of judge.me?


Why are you asking theymos? I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a shit what decision is made, just that he isn't giving a tag over it (you know, what the thread is about?). I wouldn't either. If you aren't happy with BoB's decisions, then settle it with them or don't use their service, make your own, whatever.

What happens if judge.me decides a way you don't like? New scammer tag thread? Make an account called judge.me in order to tag it? You guys are ridiculous.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 07:02:23 AM
 #147

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.

I'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 07:45:59 AM
 #148

I explain better my proposal: it's obvious that coinjedi has the right to choose whatever side he wants on every bet, this is not for debate since one accepts that condition while using BoB.

What I'm asking in this case is there is the willingness from coinjedi to validate from professionals his choice for this particular bet since so many people thinks that the result was not fair  and this is giving him a very bud reputation.
It seems like he choose the outcome of that bet to protect the losses of someone (maybe his own too? Who knows).

So, what I'm proposing is to let professionals judge the result of the bet, and verify if his choice (a draw) was a good one, not to verify if he could choose whatever outcome he prefers (of course he can).

If the outcome of judge.me is consistent with the one of coinjedi everybody should stop complaining and his reputation could be at least partially restored.
If instead the judge.me outcome is that the bet result should have been a different one, act accordingly.

If coinjedi would not act as defined, theymous could give him the scammer/unthrustyword label.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
borgfish
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76
Merit: 10


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 08:48:27 AM
 #149

i havent logged in for years, but i am actively reading most of the funny stuff here.

this is soooooo funny, bitcoin wild west at its best.
i would either inform some authorities to check wether the site is legal or i would ask some lawyer if he wants to go after the "not won" amount, maybe he would if he could keep it all...
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 09:04:58 AM
Last edit: April 05, 2013, 09:34:33 AM by BadBear
 #150


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.

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.

There were also lots and lots ofusers who called you a troll, and begged for you to.be banned, should we have caved just because there were more of them than those who defended you? Majority rules isn't always right.

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 09:42:12 AM
 #151

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

So you would agree too, to use a third party professional to understand if the bet was a draw or not?

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 10:20:30 AM
 #152

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

So you would agree too, to use a third party professional to understand if the bet was a draw or not?

If I'm understanding you properly...If BoB agreed to 3rd party arbitration, then did not follow their findings, then yes IMO that's tag worthy.

Is that what you're asking?

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 10:22:51 AM
 #153

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.
That those who didn't bet anything are overwhelmingly on one side should tell you something, but I guess if you're not able to see what side is correct just from the undisputed facts, you wouldn't care that only a small cabal of BFL associates agree with you.
I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.
Micon is annoying, but you've just provided an example of his judgment being better than most here.
niner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 100


You are here ---------> but you're not all there.


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 10:27:03 AM
 #154

The community really needs to be warned against coinjedi and his phony escrow service.  Not only did he make an insane and obviously incorrect ruling but he provided no explanation.  Shouldn't an escrow service at least provide a summary of their judgement?

Am I right that hundreds of BTC were riding on this bet?  And that betsofbitco.in still went ahead and charged fees even after cheating the winners???

Coinjedi needs a scammer tag and betsofbitco.in should be avoided at all costs.

Luke Jr. was not only evasive in the thread linked, but he also went out of his way to deceive.  He also deserves a scammer tag IMO, but I guess that's a seperate matter.

I had no action on either side of this wager.

Total agree bets: 213.82
Total disagree bets: 334.53

above data from http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=701

Ⓑ Ⓘ Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓞ Ⓘ Ⓝ 1NMBixVgJyA63MExRuChcxjhKAW1QkvZU4
digital49ers.com   bitcoin.de   Alt Coins: CryptsyVircurex
AndyRossy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 11:31:16 AM
 #155


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.

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.

There were also lots and lots ofusers who called you a troll, and begged for you to.be banned, should we have caved just because there were more of them than those who defended you? Majority rules isn't always right.

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

It's wierd the quietness of the 300BTC bet the other way? noone shouting to win...

I guess it was somehow tied to luke / BFL, as friend or elsewise.

BoB, can you disclose the distribution of bets? Not the owner, just *if* there's a bet on the other side >100BTC? And if so, can this person come forward?
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 11:35:22 AM
 #156

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.
That those who didn't bet anything are overwhelmingly on one side should tell you something, but I guess if you're not able to see what side is correct just from the undisputed facts, you wouldn't care that only a small cabal of BFL associates agree with you.

Well then you clearly don't even know what you're talking about, I even posted in Lukes thread (before coinjedi finalized his decision) stating that for the purposes of the bet, I thought BFL did NOT ship. But don't let little facts like that get in the way  Roll Eyes.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1720394#msg1720394

I don't think he deserves a scammer tag for calling a draw though.
Quote
I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.
Micon is annoying, but you've just provided an example of his judgment being better than most here.

That was kinda the point of that part of the post, at this point I'm guessing you just read what you want to read and make up the rest though.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 11:49:50 AM
 #157

If I'm understanding you properly...If BoB agreed to 3rd party arbitration, then did not follow their findings, then yes IMO that's tag worthy.

Is that what you're asking?
That's only half of it (damn it's so difficult to express complex concepts in a foreign language!).
The other half would be to honour the bet if an external judge would decide that the outcome was different from "draw".
But I suppose that would be difficult (i.e.: expensive) if BoB has already refunded everybody that took part in the bet.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 11:59:02 AM
 #158

If I'm understanding you properly...If BoB agreed to 3rd party arbitration, then did not follow their findings, then yes IMO that's tag worthy.

Is that what you're asking?
That's only half of it (damn it's so difficult to express complex concepts in a foreign language!).
The other half would be to honour the bet if an external judge would decide that the outcome was different from "draw".
But I suppose that would be difficult (i.e.: expensive) if BoB has already refunded everybody that took part in the bet.

I suspected that's what you meant, which is why I was so careful with my wording.
No I couldn't do that in good conscience. People agreed to let BoB make the decision when they used their website for the bet, to take that away from them and demand they follow yet someone else's ruling because some don't agree (keep in mind, I don't necessarily agree with it either, as I already said above), wouldn't be ethical. Only if BoB agreed to that, and like you said they can't now, since they refunded all the bets already.

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 12:10:16 PM
 #159

If I'm understanding you properly...If BoB agreed to 3rd party arbitration, then did not follow their findings, then yes IMO that's tag worthy.

Is that what you're asking?
That's only half of it (damn it's so difficult to express complex concepts in a foreign language!).
The other half would be to honour the bet if an external judge would decide that the outcome was different from "draw".
But I suppose that would be difficult (i.e.: expensive) if BoB has already refunded everybody that took part in the bet.

I suspected that's what you meant, which is why I was so careful with my wording.
No I couldn't do that in good conscience. People agreed to let BoB make the decision when they used their website for the bet, to take that away from them and demand they follow yet someone else's ruling because some don't agree (keep in mind, I don't necessarily agree with it either, as I already said above), wouldn't be ethical. Only if BoB agreed to that, and like you said they can't now, since they refunded all the bets already.

They did this kind of quick.... Seems weird to me to do this in an instant. Why not contacting bet participants and ask what they were thinking about this. Sure you get the typical "i won where is ma moneyz" people but some of them; like we've seen here; might be honest and not greedy?

Hm, this all makes no sense to debate without coinjedi or bob administrators. This is not a bitcointalk.org related issue so technically theymos and co-mods are right taking the stand not to hand out scammer tags.

On the other hand we need to have a discussion about what that famous "scammer tag" really is and to whom it may apply?  (but not here. Point me towards an existing thread if there is any?)

Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 731
Merit: 500


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 12:21:28 PM
 #160

Only if BoB agreed to that, and like you said they can't now, since they refunded all the bets already.
Of course, that's why I wrote (in essence) "if BoB is willing to accept this judgement to restore his reputation".

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
BadBear
v2.0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1025



View Profile WWW
April 05, 2013, 12:52:07 PM
 #161

They did this kind of quick.... Seems weird to me to do this in an instant. Why not contacting bet participants and ask what they were thinking about this. Sure you get the typical "i won where is ma moneyz" people but some of them; like we've seen here; might be honest and not greedy?

Hm, this all makes no sense to debate without coinjedi or bob administrators. This is not a bitcointalk.org related issue so technically theymos and co-mods are right taking the stand not to hand out scammer tags.

On the other hand we need to have a discussion about what that famous "scammer tag" really is and to whom it may apply?  (but not here. Point me towards an existing thread if there is any?)

There's two decent ones, one with some general discussion about scammers in general, and another where we talk about why I don't like the idea of making an official scammer policy.

Policy
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=108214.0

General discussion, and what to do with scammer tags going forward.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153221.0

1Kz25jm6pjNTaz8bFezEYUeBYfEtpjuKRG | PGP: B5797C4F

Tired of annoying signature ads? Ad block for signatures
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
 #162

It's clear that neither coinjedi nor his partners in crime will be getting scammer tags.  I still think it is important to warn the community about this corrupt "prediction market".  If you know of any websites that keep lists of BTC gambling sites, please contact them and make sure they know of this scam.  Betsofbitco.in needs to be listed as a scam site so that they don't have the opportunity to steal from more innocent victims. 

I saw in the gambling forum that one site operator was proactive in removing betsofbitcoin from his "reputable" list.  There are probably some others that are not aware of the situation and are listing betsofbitcoin as a legit site.
Bogart
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 04:57:18 PM
Last edit: April 05, 2013, 05:31:52 PM by Bogart
 #163

I would agree to be bound by the outcome of an arbitration service like judge.me, if the arbitration service can be shown to be reputable.  (Why is judge.me's domain registered using DomainsByProxy?)

However, for this to work, Bets of Bitcoin would need to also agree to be bound.

"All safe deposit boxes in banks or financial institutions have been sealed... and may only be opened in the presence of an agent of the I.R.S." - President F.D. Roosevelt, 1933
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 501


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 05:17:18 PM
 #164

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.


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.   


Theymos has refused to post my ad which states:
BFL: Bald Faced Liars

His justification is that it is slander (he means libel).  Since the truth is a demonstrative defense against libel and slander, I have absolutely no concerns on that account.

I'm not sure where Theymos' heart felt concern for false statements has been every week that Josh gives an update claiming that after they finish step X they will be shipping next week.  Since there has always been a dozen or more steps to go beyond step X, every shipping claim I have seen from BFL since I stopped back in here in January has been obviously false.

And if we want to talk about libel, here is Josh posting from the same account he uses to buy ads on this forum.


Quote from: BFL_Josh;17901
I love the armchair engineers that make strong technical pronouncements on the basis of fuzzy/blurry, pixelated images of an object that measures 11mm x 11mm taken with a camera phone.  Especially pronouncements made by engineers that can't tell a reflection from a piece of underfill or who define jpeg artifacting as chipped cores. Or ones who can't tell triangles from squares or circles!


Oh Burn!  You really got me there Josh!  I'm totally stung by you.

By the way, my armchair for 15 years has looked over a Ph.D. in Engineering, and that chair is situated at Intel's packaging and assembly development division.  I've worked a senior engineer on every aspect of those activities for 856 to 1274 today.

To explain what that means in terms you are bright enough to understand:
  • I know about semiconductor manufacturing 100x what you do about making up imaginary schedules
  • I know about semiconductor manufacturing nearly 10x what you know about being a douchebag on the internet

Wow, you must really be a good cock sucker then.  Any engineer that can't tell a reflection from underfill or underfill from epoxy isn't worth much more than a buck fifty blow job.  Congrats on your abilities.  I would say you are quite possibly the crappiest "engineer" on the planet, given those facts.  Did that PhD come out of a crack jack box?

Next time you're under that table, keeping your job, watch the teeth.


Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
April 05, 2013, 06:14:21 PM
 #165

Why would any legitimate company let someone who talks to customers like that work for them?

BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 06:56:13 PM
 #166

Can't believe this ...

muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 05, 2013, 08:27:11 PM
 #167

+1 scammer tag

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
00null
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 148
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 12:10:34 AM
 #168

+1 scammer tag

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.
Then please remove the scammer tag from pirateat40, it's none of your business how he decides to repay. No? Rightly so, but why the double standard?

Actually this is a horrible precedent, and everyone against giving a scammer tag should be ashamed.
Say someone hits a royal flash on a gambling site. By using the same logic that have applied here that gambling site should just call it a draw and refund the stakes. They now even can go public and praise their decision stating they would have earned commission if they had accepted the bet.
And the best thing is theymos has already stated that this behavior would never get you a scammer tag. How convenient.
This whole ruling is a huge invite for all sites to scam. Of course only big time, the tiny little sub 1BTC scammer (and Korean trolls) will be grilled as always.

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 12:20:06 AM
 #169

Why would any legitimate company let someone who talks to customers like that work for them?

I guess you haven't seen their CEO's desk.


IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
Pharaoh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 24
Merit: 0



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 01:35:52 AM
 #170

The mods should stop this whole scammer tag nonsense. There no policy that can be used as a guideline and they currently do not give out the scammer tag consistently. The mods also have too many conflicts of interest. Having BFL/betsofbitco.in in good standing on this site brings in ad revenue and site hits (more ad revenue), why would they harm their golden goose? The mods should not be determining who is a scammer and who is not, they should only ban accounts that violate the forum's TOS.
niner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 100


You are here ---------> but you're not all there.


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 02:03:42 AM
 #171

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/

Ⓑ Ⓘ Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓞ Ⓘ Ⓝ 1NMBixVgJyA63MExRuChcxjhKAW1QkvZU4
digital49ers.com   bitcoin.de   Alt Coins: CryptsyVircurex
Micon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1010


FPV Drone Pilot


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 02:19:26 AM
 #172


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.

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.

There were also lots and lots ofusers who called you a troll, and begged for you to.be banned, should we have caved just because there were more of them than those who defended you? Majority rules isn't always right.

I'm absolutely amazed that you of all people, who was in the minority fighting the majority (Pirate and his shills) for such a long time, would turn around and use the majority card when it suits you. What a hypocrite.

what the fuck are you talking about?  Pirate?  Do you remember me screaming that it's such an obvious scam to save ppl coins and shut it down so it doesn't further infect the btc world?  you are saying somehow that was wrong or I should be thankful you didn't side with obvious scammers?  You have no point there, none at all.

This 1 is clear as day. 

Everyone sees it, this is not a group complaining about losing money - ppl lose huge bets all the time on BoB and elsewhere - no one complains unless there is an outright, obvious fraud like there is here.  I wouldn't expect a "Global moderator" to be anything but massively pro-BFL, as they ship you guys another $3k for another week's worth of ads...

your post is transparent and embarrassing.

I'm flying FPV race drones these days. Check out my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/MiconFPV
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 02:23:48 AM
 #173

bitbet.us had almost the same bet and it was not a "push".
http://bitbet.us/bet/265/bfl-will-deliver-asic-devices-before-april-1st/
It's not the same bet. One customer is not "customers" - and it wasn't within 10%.

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 05:08:08 AM
 #174

Quite frankly this is getting to be a big motherfuckin' thorn up my ass, coupled with the other shit that's goin' on as of late.

Let's take a look at another bet currently runner of which in no way should even be up, for I don't have the foggiest idea what I would be betting on. http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

Quote
BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.


Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN UP?

Quote
BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.

Quote
Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates.

You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.

The first line in the body is completely irrelevant, hence crossing it out. Now, what the fuck is a first batch BFL ASIC?

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:33:03 AM
 #175

Quite frankly this is getting to be a big motherfuckin' thorn up my ass, coupled with the other shit that's goin' on as of late.

Let's take a look at another bet currently runner of which in no way should even be up, for I don't have the foggiest idea what I would be betting on. http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=1324

Quote
BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

Butterfly Labs has had a long history of postponing their shipment dates. You bet on the fact that the first batch BFL ASIC has not been shipped until July 1st 2013.


Info
Opening date: March 12, 2013
Bet deadline: June 29, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Event date: July 1, 2013 end of day Eastern Time
Category: Technology
Total agree bets: 2.20
Total disagree bets: 3.05
Total weighted agree bets: 5697.852
Total weighted disagree bets: 7160.416

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS EVEN UP?

Quote
BFL will not ship the first batch of their ASIC miners before July 2013

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.
This is obviously another poorly defined bet, yes.
While the first batch is pretty well-defined by BFL, the bet fails to mention whether it needs to begin shipping by July 1, or be completely 100% shipped.
In the latter case, it also fails to define how the answer is to be determined - did BFL agree to disclose when the first batch is 100% shipped? If not, it would seem the former (first batch has begun shipping) must be the case. But this should be explicit.
In the case of "first batch begun shipping", does that include my order (which is obviously pre-first batch) or not? IMO, it shouldn't - but again, this should be explicit.

Now what I'm wondering is... why are people betting on poorly-defined bets?

muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 07:08:30 AM
 #176

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Theymos, I know both you and Luke are sound guys, but you are making a disservice to the site by not putting at least a warning tag on this guy. Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

On top of that, you have been advertising BFL products as final here for a while. Products that don't exist in any shape or form as advertised. You have a certain degree of responsibility now, I know people who have assumed BFL actually shipped these products because of ads in this site.

This is Wild West bitcoin world at its worst.

PS: guys, stop betting on BFL stuff as they will fail to reliably own up and the burden of proof will be on you. Bet only on events you can prove (and not in dubious sites like betsofbitco.in who have already proven themselves).


GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 07:27:13 AM
 #177

The title above mentions the first batch. Explain exactly to me what constitutes the first batch.
This is obviously another poorly defined bet, yes.
While the first batch is pretty well-defined by BFL, the bet fails to mention whether it needs to begin shipping by July 1, or be completely 100% shipped.
In the latter case, it also fails to define how the answer is to be determined - did BFL agree to disclose when the first batch is 100% shipped? If not, it would seem the former (first batch has begun shipping) must be the case. But this should be explicit.
In the case of "first batch begun shipping", does that include my order (which is obviously pre-first batch) or not? IMO, it shouldn't - but again, this should be explicit.

Now what I'm wondering is... why are people betting on poorly-defined bets?
[/quote]

"Shipped" before a deadline, in past tense, would mean completely shipped.

I think that's clear enough, although you may need a lot of clarification when dealing with dishonourable people like BFL who would look for loopholes to avoid owning up to their responsibility.

I think you are big on the "social contract" idea, right? Well, these people you are working with... not so much. So careful there.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 10:50:46 AM
 #178

Those "hundreds of users" have money at stake, so of course they're gonna disagree. Doesn't make them any more right than someone else just because there are more of them.
That those who didn't bet anything are overwhelmingly on one side should tell you something, but I guess if you're not able to see what side is correct just from the undisputed facts, you wouldn't care that only a small cabal of BFL associates agree with you.

Well then you clearly don't even know what you're talking about, I even posted in Lukes thread (before coinjedi finalized his decision) stating that for the purposes of the bet, I thought BFL did NOT ship. But don't let little facts like that get in the way  Roll Eyes.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=163261.msg1720394#msg1720394
I see. You're still furthering a logical fallacy, by pretending that everyone who was against it had a stake in the bet. A popularity argument is sometimes wrong to make. Your example of Micon being right against the masses of Pirate invstors was a good counter-argument. Pretending that everyone who disagreed was those who lost money, was not a good counter-argument. If you had left out the first sentence of your post I would have agreed with it.
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 10:58:05 AM
 #179

Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the double-standard. What did they do differently than I did in my November prank?

I received a scammer tag on "principle" because "everyone knew what the bet was about despite [my] wording". I do not object to this, I deserved it and it was in poor taste.

Why then is this a different situation? What was the point of my scammer tag (what lesson was I supposed to have learned)? "Matthew, don't do that again or you'll get a scammer tag.. oh but Betsofbitco.in can do it, that's alright. Do as I say, not as I do."

It's very clear that Betsofbitco.in pulled a "Matthew" and got away with it.

Beepbop
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 11:00:56 AM
 #180

Your wording left no loopholes. You just redefined what it meant after the fact. The only difference between the two scams is that while MNW redefined what his own bet meant, it was whoever paid coinjedi to call a draw that redefined what this bet meant rather than the guy who defined the bet (Bogart).
Matthew N. Wright
Untrustworthy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500


Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 11:03:27 AM
 #181

Does anyone here think I wouldn't have gotten a scammer tag if I labeled my bet "a draw"?

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 11:16:13 AM
 #182

I'm not giving him a scammer tag. By using betsofbitco.in, you agreed that betsofbitco.in staff would be the ones to decide events. It's none of my business how he does this.

Theymos, I know both you and Luke are sound guys, but you are making a disservice to the site by not putting at least a warning tag on this guy. Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

On top of that, you have been advertising BFL products as final here for a while. Products that don't exist in any shape or form as advertised. You have a certain degree of responsibility now, I know people who have assumed BFL actually shipped these products because of ads in this site.

This is Wild West bitcoin world at its worst.

PS: guys, stop betting on BFL stuff as they will fail to reliably own up and the burden of proof will be on you. Bet only on events you can prove (and not in dubious sites like betsofbitco.in who have already proven themselves).



Luke is a sound guy?
Luke? The guy that helped BFL do their trick with BoB?
If BoB deserves a scam tag than Luke deserves his own fork.
I think that as a bitcoin developer he did a great disservice to the community by taking part in this deceptive deal.
Luke, in my book, has shown himself to be far from sound.
For someone relying on logic so much he sure knows how to pick his logics conveniently.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 04:16:23 PM
 #183

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 04:47:22 PM
 #184

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.

Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:09:56 PM
 #185

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.
Whether I did or not, is not my problem. I have every right to post pictures of my device Josh took for me.

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:30:50 PM
 #186

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Did you or did you not show proof of ownership after the deadline of the bet has passed? I'm in reference to the the two images you posted provided by Josh.
Whether I did or not, is not my problem. I have every right to post pictures of my device Josh took for me.

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

The pictures show a dev board and not a device as defined by the bet.
Funny how you seem to elaborate on the realy unimportant stuff.

You were also fully aware of the bet and were actively plotting with BFL make this not be a fail for BFL.
You are most certainly party in the bet, one way or another.
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 05:31:17 PM
 #187

To actually answer your question, requires a great deal of defining: what is considered "proof of ownership" and what is the deadline? In the context of the bet (which I had/have nothing to do with), it seems "proof of ownership" was defined as "credible pictures" - so I would say that part is true; it also defines the deadline as the end of the day of April 1st, which my post was certainly before.
But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
JordanL
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:39:40 PM
 #188

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.


Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?

Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:45:13 PM
 #189

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?
Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

mobodick
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 05:59:11 PM
 #190

All I did was accept a device I paid for a long time ago.
Trying to make me the bad guy here just discredits you even more, and exposes how your bias is the only basis for your argument.
Do you deny that you made your post with conscious intent of fulfilling BFL's side of the betsofbitoin.com wager?
Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.
I think you're smarter than that.
This whole BFL thing smells of fail on a rail anyway.
KGambler
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 06:27:59 PM
 #191

There was a (now locked) thread in the Mining forum asking how BFL is allowed to run their misleading ads on this forum.  Luke stopped in yesterday to again spread more disinformation.

Quote
Ignore the trolls. I've had my Little Single (ASIC) for nearly a week now, and it's working fine.
Even if the rest of the devices haven't shipped yet, it's obvious there is a product and only a fool would claim they aren't going to deliver.


Funny how he not only keeps using deceptive language, but also refers to those components on a table as a "Little Single".  BFL doesn't even offer the "Little Single" for sale anymore.

As he points out, its been about a week since he claimed to receive his "Little Single".  No one else has received so much as a tracking number.

Luke must think people are really stupid.  As if we can't see that this whole thing was cooked up between him and Josh Zerlan...
MPOE-PR
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 07:09:07 PM
 #192

Maybe you could take a couple of pictures of your device yourself and post them here, shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I mean, they did ship it to you, right?

Actually, they shipped him to the item rather than the item to him.

The mods should stop this whole scammer tag nonsense. There no policy that can be used as a guideline and they currently do not give out the scammer tag consistently. The mods also have too many conflicts of interest. Having BFL/betsofbitco.in in good standing on this site brings in ad revenue and site hits (more ad revenue), why would they harm their golden goose? The mods should not be determining who is a scammer and who is not, they should only ban accounts that violate the forum's TOS.

This is a point. Scammer tag currently does more damage as the entire usagi "I am not scammertagged therefore I am well trusted" pseudoargument.

On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.

My Credentials  | THE BTC Stock Exchange | I have my very own anthology! | Use bitcointa.lk, it's like this one but better.
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 07:18:55 PM
 #193

On the other hand, it does stoke the drama. And Bitcoin is backed by drama.

...and comedy gold.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3164
Merit: 1039


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 08:44:48 PM
 #194

But again, this has nothing to do with me. I don't see how accepting my paid-for hardware, or posting pictures of it taken by BFL, makes me in any way a party to the bet or somehow a "scammer". That is complete nonsense.

The only reason the bet was called into question was due to your deceitful post. So, yeah, you are a party to the scam.

Buy & Hold
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 08:50:05 PM
 #195

Something similar to, say, what Matthew has.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the double-standard. What did they do differently than I did in my November prank?

I received a scammer tag on "principle" because "everyone knew what the bet was about despite [my] wording". I do not object to this, I deserved it and it was in poor taste.

Why then is this a different situation? What was the point of my scammer tag (what lesson was I supposed to have learned)? "Matthew, don't do that again or you'll get a scammer tag.. oh but Betsofbitco.in can do it, that's alright. Do as I say, not as I do."

It's very clear that Betsofbitco.in pulled a "Matthew" and got away with it.

Maybe because you posted and participated your bet here on bitcointalk.org.
They weren't doing this here; the bet took part at bob own service website.
If incorrect point me to a link Wink

Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


amarha


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:00:29 PM
 #196

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.

Este Nuno
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1000


amarha


View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:04:16 PM
 #197

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.
blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 09:10:43 PM
 #198

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

So you are suggesting that it is pure coincidence that

1) You "received" your device some hours before the bet deadline (during Easter holidays)

2) You decided to write your post at about the deadline time (depending on time zone)

3) You felt the need to use the words "as of yesterday" and post pictures taken by somebody else

How convenient!

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1103


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 09:24:50 PM
 #199

Yes, I can honestly deny that.
While I was vaguely aware there were bets going on, I don't and still have no reason to care about their terms or outcome.
If I were doing it to influence a bet, I would have posted it immediately, instead of as an afterthought 20 minutes after I posted them to my BFL-hosted blog.

So you are suggesting that it is pure coincidence that

1) You "received" your device some hours before the bet deadline (during Easter holidays)

2) You decided to write your post at about the deadline time (depending on time zone)

3) You felt the need to use the words "as of yesterday" and post pictures taken by somebody else

How convenient!

4) And post the images after midnight EST, thus making the bit TRUE. This fact, and this fact alone, should have been the only proof needed to declare the bet appropriately, yet was brushed aside by coinjedi, declaring a draw. Totally motherfuckin' amazing!

From a random contest to illustrate a point: http://www.hpj.com/archives/2009/mar09/mar30/USWheatAssociatesannouncest.cfm

Quote
Entries postmarked before Aug. 1, should be mailed to Steve Mercer, U.S. Wheat Associates, 3103 10th Street North, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22201, 202-263-0999.

Assuming the best photo, bar none, was mailed in and could have easily won this contest, the submitted photo would not qualify. Why! BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED LATE. Every other aspect of the contest may have been met, but this entry would not qualify.

What the fuck is so motherfuckin' unambiguous about this?

Speaking of unambiguous, why not a peep from Josh about this since this issue arose?

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1022



View Profile
April 06, 2013, 09:38:25 PM
 #200

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.

blockbet.net
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


Admin at blockbet.net


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2013, 09:49:41 PM
 #201

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.

Oh cool, a brand new explanation. Yes, the word "before" in "before April 1st" is quite ambiguous and should have been defined better.

Bitcoin Sports Betting online at www.blockbet.net, featuring NBA, NHL, UFC, football (soccer) and international competitions. Fast payouts directly to your wallet, great win odds, no need to register or deposit. Bet in just a few clicks now!
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 07, 2013, 12:45:08 AM
 #202

Hey Luke;

I do not care about the bet, wish it would go away and people just learn from it.   I would ask that you answer one question directly though.   While you were at BFL, how many employees did you see?   Were there 22?   Or was it closer to 5?   Please let us know so we can figure out if they can even possible ship anyone beyond the first day of orders.